upvote

points

by JumpCrisscross2 days ago |
comments
upvoteby jeffbee2 days ago|
[-]
How do you think SVP buys energy from its contracted generators? They don't own transmission from those places (unlike SMUD which, to an incomplete extent, actually does own its generating assets and transmission lines). SVP pays regulated wholesale distribution rates to PG&E to get access to their contracted generators. But the process determining such rates ignores the way that wildfire liability is assigned to PG&E, which is a significant part of current PG&E retail rates. It also ignores mandates such as rural electrification. PG&E must serve every yokel in California no matter how far out, while SVP and other MUDs contribute nothing to rural electrification mandates.
reply
upvoteby danans1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> PG&E must serve every yokel in California no matter how far out, while SVP and other MUDs contribute nothing to rural electrification mandates

You can both be right about this. PGE is subject to rural electrification mandates.

However, the way those mandates get satisfied can vary tremendously in cost, and because by regulation investor owned utilities are compensated as a % of their capex spend, there is an incentive to use more expensive solutions, especially when those solutions induce greater dependency on their transmission infrastructure.

Furthermore, apart from expensive bespoke off-grid setups, there is inherently no competition in transmission in distribution. It's a natural monopoly.

AFAIK, municipal utilities do not have any say over how IOU monopolies deploy capital, so why should they be subject to those costs?

If we feel that rural communities deserve electrical service (don't we all deserve it?), then perhaps those should be publicly owned/financed through taxes and a competitive bidding process by private entities, not shunted into uneven electricity rates.

reply
upvoteby jeffbee14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Whether rural communities "deserve" electrification is a topic we need to reopen. When we created the notion of rural electrification, there were many little communities all over the place engaged in farming and mining and logging, and it was easy to see that power and telephone to such places was not just fair but necessary. But in this century what we have is separatists who simply spread out because they hate everyone, not for a valid economic purpose. These dispersions of houses such as you see in Amador County were built quite recently. Those people should face the full economic consequence of their preferences, not be subsidized by the state.
reply
upvoteby danans9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> But in this century what we have is separatists who simply spread out because they hate everyone, not for a valid economic purpose.

I don't doubt that such people exist, but rural areas are also populated by people who are priced out of expensive urban centers. Furthermore, those two groups also probably have some overlap. I also agree that those people need to have skin in the game, but I don't see a way forward without compromise.

reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> PG&E must serve every yokel in California no matter how far out

Has anyone estimated the cost savings of relieving this mandate?

reply