Questions for our American friends

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I have to vehemently disagree Deep. At least in my area, SDG&E has pleaded with the Gov regulators many times to recoup losses from natural disasters and been granted it. The fires from a few years ago cost them.

That's the entire point: a regulated public utility has to go to State regulators and _ask_ for higher rates. Regulators can and do say "no"

California is an expensive place to generate electricity and natural disasters are real costs, I fail to see why a utility shouldn't got to the regulator and ask for higher rates to cover these costs.

You can point to utilities that made terrible decisions -- nuclear plants come to mind-- but US complainers are guilty of taking something that's extraordinarily complex and saying "oh that's easy". It's not remotely easy to maintain the extraordinarily reliable electric grid that we have, providing electricity every second without interruption at affordable cost.

Watch how quickly FPL got millions of Floridians back online after Irma . . . This is an achievement

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by palo5

As we saw in the Enron crisis. Those private grids are rigged & corrupt. There's enough on youtube to show this -- traders laughing about grannies because they shut down a plant for "maintenance" and the grannies had to pay more. Not only grannies, of course, but that's who they mentioned

Jail the traders and confiscate their cash!

Let's make like the Chinese and hang a few traders instead.

The whole deregulated thing was a fraud perpetrated by the regulated "natural monopolies" to boost their profits. If the companies really wanted to see consumers benefited they would not howl and file lawsuits when cities try to set up competing utilities or cable TV services.

There is always a problem of the firms co-opting the regulators. Our big example in Northern California was PG&E being granted a rate increase to replace aging gas mains. The company diverted those funs into executive bonuses and shareholder dividends. Predictably, a gas main failed resulting in an explosion and fire that killed 8 people in San Bruno. Now, PG&E wants another rate increase to pay for the work they were previously paid to do (and presumably offset the cost of the lawsuits arising from their previous malfeasance and pay for the TV ads saying how committed to they are to serving their customers.)

Capitalism sometimes has trouble corralling crooks. Socialism has had its problems. Like I said, we really need to develop a better grade of human being to make idealized systems work.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

That's the entire point: a regulated public utility has to go to State regulators and _ask_ for higher rates. Regulators can and do say "no"

California is an expensive place to generate electricity and natural disasters are real costs, I fail to see why a utility shouldn't got to the regulator and ask for higher rates to cover these costs.

You can point to utilities that made terrible decisions -- nuclear plants come to mind-- but US complainers are guilty of taking something that's extraordinarily complex and saying "oh that's easy". It's not remotely easy to maintain the extraordinarily reliable electric grid that we have, providing electricity every second without interruption at affordable cost.

Watch how quickly FPL got millions of Floridians back online after Irma . . . This is an achievement

That is true Deep but should the rate payers have to pay because the utility did not carry enough insurance? Wouldn't that be considered malfeasance? If I had a business and a disaster happened and my insurance was insufficient could I go and get my customers to pay? I don't think so.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

That is true Deep but should the rate payers have to pay because the utility did not carry enough insurance? Wouldn't that be considered malfeasance? If I had a business and a disaster happened and my insurance was insufficient could I go and get my customers to pay? I don't think so.

The question would be "who would write such insurance at what cost?" I can't claim to know anything much about SDGE as compared to other operators, but I'd observe that Southern California has had massive growth, San Diego has been one of the fastest growing cities in the nation for a very long time. That imposes a lot of costs on an operator. . . and San Diego has a "Climate Action Plan" calling for %100 of electricity generation from renewables by 2035 . . . there's a cost there.

Here's a chart comparing electricity costs around the world. The US is not expensive . . . San Diego electric is substantially more than the US average, but its hardly exorbitant at 16 cents per kwh.



California electric utilities are heavily effected by renewables. Because of the rapid growth of solar and wind, utilities are finding that they're stuck with the grid costs, with the power plant costs, but they're actually selling much less power than they had anticipated-- this increases the rates, because all these fixed costs are being recovered over fewer kw/h

Here's a remarkable chart from today, showing gross demand and net demand:



And here's the renewables production that causes the huge gap between gross and net; around mid-day, California was producing 9 gigawatts of power from solar! That's massive. its a good thing, but that's electricity that the utility is _not_ selling.

[SanteeFats]

Ahh I think I see our differences. You seem to be talking overall for a utility company and I am really just talking about the fact that SDG&E is trying to recoup costs from it's own shortsightedness in one event.
I agree that all should pay for improvements and such except SDG&E always seems to want recompense for some things that the stockholders should, IMO, shoulder and not the rate payers. Poor business practices should not be made up from the ratepayers pocket. Although down here it often is.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Ahh I think I see our differences. You seem to be talking overall for a utility company and I am really just talking about the fact that SDG&E is trying to recoup costs from it's own shortsightedness in one event.

If we're thinking of the same event, this is presently in dispute, and so far SDGE has not been able to stick the ratepayers with this . . . so whatever rates you're paying now do not include these charges. The Public Utility Commission has apparently denied their request-- which would seem to argue for the efficiency of regulation

There's a hearing on this tomorrow . . .

Originally Posted by CPUC TO HOLD HEARING SEPT. 28 LOCALLY ON PROPOSED DECISION REGARDING WILDFIRE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR SDG&E

September 26, 2017 (San Diego) –The California Public Utilities Commission will hold a public hearing Thursday at 9:30 a.m. in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers (276 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista) on the CPUC’s proposed decision to deny SDG&E’s application to charge ratepayers $379 million for recovery of its uninsured losses related to the 2007 Witch, Rice and Guejito wildfires. A similar request for $594 million was previously denied in 2012.

SDG&E sought to recover those losses through a Wildfire Expense Memorandum Account (WEMA). The proposed decision against SDG&E has drawn praise from some, including Supervisor Dianne Jacob, but concerns from others including a fire survivor and intervener in the case. Some ratepayer advocates also warn that the CPUC could change its mind on the proposed denial of SDG&E’s WEMA application or postpone action following ex-parte lobbying efforts by the utility company.

Two CPUC’s administrative law judges found, after hearing the evidence, that SDG&E “did not reasonably manage and operate its facilities prior to the 2007 Witch, Guejito and Rice Widfires.” Cal Fire found that equipment by SDG&E caused the fires, along with Cox equipment in one fire. SDG&E has denied that improper management or maintenance of its equipment caused the fires, but has paid out numerous settlement claims for damages to fire victims. The company has also made major investments to fire-harden its equipment since then to prevent future fires.

I can't speak to the facts, but it appears that the issue is getting careful consideration-- and you can say that ten years after the fact, SDG&E hasn't been able to recover these costs, so its not like anyone's rolling over for them . . .

I don't object to a utility trying to get ratepayer reimbursement, you'd expect them to make the most optimistic case for their position . . . So far the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) seems as unsympathetic to their case as you are.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

"Regulated Public Utilities" are very different from other businesses. They all report to their State public utility commissions, which set allowable rates and returns, approve and disapprove new plants etc.

It is a highly regulated market, not at all what you're imagining.

I'd like to know if you can have "law-makers" politicians in board of directors of private "regulated public utilities enterprises" in USA ?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I'd like to know if you can have "law-makers" politicians in board of directors of private "regulated public utilities enterprises" in USA ?

Nope.

Elected officials generally cannot serve as directors or officers of any business. They might in some circumstances serve on the board of a not for profit, a charity. It’s also possible that the rules may vary somewhat from state to state.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Nope.

Elected officials generally cannot serve as directors or officers of any business.

Could you believe that the fact in France and Switzerland?

I don't know if it's the fact in other European countries.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Nope.

Elected officials generally cannot serve as directors or officers of any business. They might in some circumstances serve on the board of a not for profit, a charity. It’s also possible that the rules may vary somewhat from state to state.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Could you believe that the fact in France and Switzerland?

I don't know if it's the fact in other European countries.

It's in Germany too.

But not as easy as that, if you hire an executive director, who is contractually bound, to dance to your piping.