SDG&E is not exactly a role model for its rate payers. They have extremely high rates for their electricity.bearister said:
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-mercury-news/20191104/281492163122253
PG&E needs to do more. SDG&E only had a local power distribution line problem. PG&E also has a high voltage transmission line problem over an area 17 times greater.concordtom said:
Synopsis:
Sdg&e power lines caused 3 huge fires 15 years ago. In reponse, they have spent money and manpower to modernize their equipment in the field.
Pg&e is at where sdg&e was before, and needs to do the same.
Outside of small counties like San Francisco, are there many countywide fire departments? Outside of the urban areas, the void is filled by fire districts. Rural San Diego residents are conservative and have fought efforts to create fire districts and thus pay taxes for fire protection. For years they got FREE fire response from Cal Fire, but recently Cal Fire wanted to be paid, but their customers don't want to pay. Whether they pay or not, this fire season San Diego County has been getting fantastic fire response from Cal Fire. I wouldn't be surprised if Cal Fire has increased it's support of rural San Diego. I've seen Cal Fire at car fires on freeways in Chula Vista this year, they have been quite visible throughout the county.wifeisafurd said:
Back to being unpopular.
This is an oversimplification of the situation written by actors that don't know what they are talking about.
SDG&E was in finical trouble years ago (so much so they tried to merge with SCE), and basically went to a friendly Governor and said, you can deal with us or a bankruptcy Judge who will make all the decisions. The upshot was SDG&E got the juice to make improvements to its systems. Why does that matter - it raises rate base, and rates and profits are based on return on rate base. Why does it matter in San Diego County, there is no San Diego County Fire Department (last I heard - this may have changed). That means the fires in East County went crazy, sorta like rural Bay Area. Undergrounding and the like have mattered.
When I was a CFO at a utility company (not either of the two you mentioned), we had a horrible time getting the PUC to approve our capital budgets. Everything was unnecessary because they were under order to keep rates down. Many times we had to bring City officials and advocates groups to rate hearings to support local projects. PG&E suffered from the same fate for some period of time. And then came San Bruno. They went bankrupt. That was the time prudent management should have said to the PUC or the bankruptcy judge, we have this aging system, look what happened, approve our big capital budget (and btw we will get more money your honor). We will do it phases, so rates don't spike that much (remember all the capital improvements are added to rate base).
One thing about capital intensive companies like utilities is that they need to raise capital, such as for capital improvements. The PUC basically allows the companies to raise money from debt or capital, but either costs money, either in interest payments of dividends. PG&E does not pay a great dividend compared to most companies, but has to pay a decent dividend compared to other companies because it is a finical risk. The other alternative is debt, and the PUC rightfully places a limit on debt ratios because it doesn't want its utilities to be over-leveraged, and because interest payments get higher and are passed ultimately to the ratepayer in higher rates. Thus, the concerns I read about dividend payments are by people who don't get how utilities work. You could turn them public (like the City of Los Angeles), but you, the taxpayer, have to pay fair market value for the net assets (billions) to acquire the system, reduce your tax base by lost property taxes and other local taxes, and then operate under all the conditions that the government does (such as why it costs Cal twice as much to build anything than say a private operator like Stanford). I just know that the City of Los Angles still has an aging system and costs more. What the PUC really needs to do is go and kick some butt, and get an outside consultant to help them mandate a capital plan. Also, I admit this is an oversimplification, but the point remains.
wifeisafurd said:
...What the PUC really needs to do is go and kick some butt, and get an outside consultant to help them mandate a capital plan. Also, I admit this is an oversimplification, but the point remains.
In San Diego that would be called "building a ballpark".bearister said:
The basis for why I have a hard time believing any excuses made by PG&E or on it's behalf:
" On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses." Naider, Eric (January 13, 2012). "PG&E diverted safety money for profit, bonuses". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved November 11, 2012.
Much like a cheating spouse, I'm not sure how you earn back trust after that.
Disagree.concordtom said:
I think within a relatively short time period, solar and storage are going to be so big that it will be cost prohibitive to maintain the Pg&e system.
A couple decades?
Grid parity was achieved in CA some years ago. Solar is now cheaper.
Once storage is similarly available, game over, no need for grid connection. Utilities nationwide go belly up.
And telephone and electricity poles will slowly be removed across the country. Future generations will marvel that we had these lines over our heads (unsightly, not to mention a massive capital project) for over 100 years. It will a vestige of a bygone era.
Agree or Disagree:
sp4149 said:
For what it is worth, the amount PG&E needed to improve safety was tens of billions. A $100 million to push that expenditure down the road a few years was a good Wall Street investment. In seven years PG&E saved much more than $100 million; now in bankruptcy it is someone else's problem.
Deficient Infrastructure maintenance spending is hardly unique to PG&E or private sector versus public sector management. AS Long as corporate managers have responsibility only to share holders (aka Wall Street) dividends will be paid at the expense of public safety. These examples expose the bare faced lie that corporations are people too. That one little SC ruling that protected the Octopus continues to plague our society.bearister said:
" The company also reportedly spent $5 billion on shareholder dividends despite the need for repairs to decades-old equipment."
Pacific Gas and Electric: PG&E ignored repairs to its aging power lines for years, report says - CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/pacific-gas-and-electric-camp-fire-ignored-repairs-for-years-on-its-aging-power-lines-report-says/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/pacific-gas-and-electric-camp-fire-ignored-repairs-for-years-on-its-aging-power-lines-report-says/
Good question. Have your consultant, (which is a cost you pass on to PG&E assuming the BK judge allows) audit every major network, get an inventory of upgrades, and then prioritize the necessary work. The consultant should provide a cost estimate, but the CPUC should require bids where possible. Priority will be political, but fire suppression has to be a major factor. The idea is that up to date utilities cost money. It's not that I favor high rates, it is just they are entitled to be compensated under law for their rate base. The idea of keeping rates down and the infrastructure dated is a failed policy as evidenced by the the loss of life and property damage. One of the oversimplifications is the assumption that the BK judge allows the CPUC to be this active. But at this juncture, the CPUC needs to step-up, as the company is just going to do what the BK judge requires and no more.concordtom said:wifeisafurd said:
...What the PUC really needs to do is go and kick some butt, and get an outside consultant to help them mandate a capital plan. Also, I admit this is an oversimplification, but the point remains.
Please list or describe what kicking butt means?
You're in favor of higher Pg&e rates so they can fix the old dangerous setup?
The article discussed significant investment bu SDG&E in undergrounding lines in areas prone to fire and other improvements (presumably technical monitoring). SDG&E went on a big repair and maintenance program. It was multifaceted. SCE is behind, but in its latest rate case went big on technology. For some reason, SCE, unlike SDG&E, doesn't like to underground facilities.Another Bear said:
I didn't read the article but I have a good idea what it's about since my brother worked for SCE, retired in May after 33 years. His summary: SDGE has used tech to monitor transmission lines, remote cameras and weather monitors to gather real time info for awhile and have the lead. It helps make better decisions when shutting off power for wildfires. SCE has started to do this but is behind. PG&E doesn't even have it on their radar...and it's not likely going to happen now given bankruptcy.
You mean like the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Santa Barbara County Fire Department, Ventura County Fire Department, Riverside County Fire Department, and just go up the coast. I think you answered that there still is no San Diego Fire County Fire Department and that Eastern San Diego relies on Cal Fire feuded by grants from the County. Other people can respond to water issues, but this is not a PG&E issue with respect to outdated infrastructure.sp4149 said:Outside of small counties like San Francisco, are there many countywide fire departments? Outside of the urban areas, the void is filled by fire districts. Rural San Diego residents are conservative and have fought efforts to create fire districts and thus pay taxes for fire protection. For years they got FREE fire response from Cal Fire, but recently Cal Fire wanted to be paid, but their customers don't want to pay. Whether they pay or not, this fire season San Diego County has been getting fantastic fire response from Cal Fire. I wouldn't be surprised if Cal Fire has increased it's support of rural San Diego. I've seen Cal Fire at car fires on freeways in Chula Vista this year, they have been quite visible throughout the county.wifeisafurd said:
Back to being unpopular.
This is an oversimplification of the situation written by actors that don't know what they are talking about.
SDG&E was in finical trouble years ago (so much so they tried to merge with SCE), and basically went to a friendly Governor and said, you can deal with us or a bankruptcy Judge who will make all the decisions. The upshot was SDG&E got the juice to make improvements to its systems. Why does that matter - it raises rate base, and rates and profits are based on return on rate base. Why does it matter in San Diego County, there is no San Diego County Fire Department (last I heard - this may have changed). That means the fires in East County went crazy, sorta like rural Bay Area. Undergrounding and the like have mattered.
When I was a CFO at a utility company (not either of the two you mentioned), we had a horrible time getting the PUC to approve our capital budgets. Everything was unnecessary because they were under order to keep rates down. Many times we had to bring City officials and advocates groups to rate hearings to support local projects. PG&E suffered from the same fate for some period of time. And then came San Bruno. They went bankrupt. That was the time prudent management should have said to the PUC or the bankruptcy judge, we have this aging system, look what happened, approve our big capital budget (and btw we will get more money your honor). We will do it phases, so rates don't spike that much (remember all the capital improvements are added to rate base).
One thing about capital intensive companies like utilities is that they need to raise capital, such as for capital improvements. The PUC basically allows the companies to raise money from debt or capital, but either costs money, either in interest payments of dividends. PG&E does not pay a great dividend compared to most companies, but has to pay a decent dividend compared to other companies because it is a finical risk. The other alternative is debt, and the PUC rightfully places a limit on debt ratios because it doesn't want its utilities to be over-leveraged, and because interest payments get higher and are passed ultimately to the ratepayer in higher rates. Thus, the concerns I read about dividend payments are by people who don't get how utilities work. You could turn them public (like the City of Los Angeles), but you, the taxpayer, have to pay fair market value for the net assets (billions) to acquire the system, reduce your tax base by lost property taxes and other local taxes, and then operate under all the conditions that the government does (such as why it costs Cal twice as much to build anything than say a private operator like Stanford). I just know that the City of Los Angles still has an aging system and costs more. What the PUC really needs to do is go and kick some butt, and get an outside consultant to help them mandate a capital plan. Also, I admit this is an oversimplification, but the point remains.
The reason could be that the SD county supervisors contribute 80 % of Cal Fires local budget. Since the 2018, the board has increased local CAL Fire budget by nearly $11 million, and has already approved a budget increase to almost $50 million by the year 2021. When we staffed Navy fire departments, each engine company cost about $1 million a year. The funding increase goes a long way to explaining how CalFire in San Diego seems to be responding much faster than in Northern California. More engine companies closer to the fire locations than ever before. Cal Fire has responded to fires in Chula Vista faster than Chula Vista fire companies at times, increases in Cal Fire engine companies means better inter agency response. Since Cal Fire is the first responder in many places in Northern California, I wonder if local counties have upped the ante.
Southern Sonoma county used to have volunteer fire departments; which just can't respond quick enough with enough resources, like water tankers, compared to Cal Fire in San Diego.
Another issue when it comes to Utilities is DOD. DOD buys it's utilities for most bases. In Northern California, many bases had WAPA power and didn't need PG&E, and after base closures there weren't enough bases left to matter. San Diego on the other hand buys from SDG&E and the base operations increased after base closures up north. SDG&E can apply pressure from the FEDs in the context of National Security and get relief that other utilties do not get. That is also the reason San Diego does not comply with the Clean Water Act or Storm Water Acts; they have been granted exemptions in the interest of national security for decades. Most state agencies cave when requests are made based on national security.
You have to read the WSJ article that is referenced to understand the issue. One of the oversimplification things is that certain parts of utility plant are controlled by FERC. PG&E is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which determines the utility's interstate transmission charges that make up about 10 percent of the revenues collected in electric rates. The remaining 90 percent are those revenues overseen by the CPUC. FERC is all over the place when I was in the game about capital replacements and rate setting. They are a lot less political than the CPUC, and typically defer to the company, as long as the FERC staff is on board. The WSJ article details a relatively small portion of the utility plant which are multi-state transmission towers, that seems to have been ignored for what was considered higher priority items (see the WSJ article). I doubt on these towers the CPUC will get any oversight, as it doesn't have jurisdiction. I'm not sure how big of deal any of was the WSJ article report on is critical - some engineer will have to address. For example, the WSJ article says equipment on that line caused the Camp Fire relying on guilt by association no doubt. The problem is that they omitted that the towers, which they reported on, were not in fact the cause (very sleazy reporting). The equipment, as opposed to the towers, most likely would fall under CPUC authority, but I'm willing to be corrected by an engineer. The dividend linkage is a red herring IMO.bearister said:sp4149 said:
For what it is worth, the amount PG&E needed to improve safety was tens of billions. A $100 million to push that expenditure down the road a few years was a good Wall Street investment. In seven years PG&E saved much more than $100 million; now in bankruptcy it is someone else's problem.
" The company also reportedly spent $5 billion on shareholder dividends despite the need for repairs to decades-old equipment."
Pacific Gas and Electric: PG&E ignored repairs to its aging power lines for years, report says - CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/pacific-gas-and-electric-camp-fire-ignored-repairs-for-years-on-its-aging-power-lines-report-says/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/pacific-gas-and-electric-camp-fire-ignored-repairs-for-years-on-its-aging-power-lines-report-says/
sp4149 said:Disagree.concordtom said:
I think within a relatively short time period, solar and storage are going to be so big that it will be cost prohibitive to maintain the Pg&e system.
A couple decades?
Grid parity was achieved in CA some years ago. Solar is now cheaper.
Once storage is similarly available, game over, no need for grid connection. Utilities nationwide go belly up.
And telephone and electricity poles will slowly be removed across the country. Future generations will marvel that we had these lines over our heads (unsightly, not to mention a massive capital project) for over 100 years. It will a vestige of a bygone era.
Agree or Disagree:
The effort to improve battery efficiency has been ongoing for over a hundred years with only a marginal improvement, when what was needed was an ORDER of Magnitude improvement.
Computer technology and electronics technology has seen an order of magnitude improvement every few years;
electrical battery storage has not. Fuel cells were developed over fifty years ago to provide an alternative stored energy source to the battery. Many advantages, including environmental; but they are not an option in a new Tesla. The needed storage upgrade isn't happening soon enough.
Oh, underground lines, that's a big deal. I understand over mountainous terrain, underground is very expensive. Why SCE doesn't like underground, cost or different terrain? The terrain seems similar but maybe not. Grassland/chaparral and potential Santa Ana winds is where underground helps prevent wildfires.wifeisafurd said:The article discussed significant investment bu SDG&E in undergrounding lines in areas prone to fire and other improvements (presumably technical monitoring). SDG&E went on a big repair and maintenance program. It was multifaceted. SCE is behind, but in its latest rate case went big on technology. For some reason, SCE, unlike SDG&E, doesn't like to underground facilities.Another Bear said:
I didn't read the article but I have a good idea what it's about since my brother worked for SCE, retired in May after 33 years. His summary: SDGE has used tech to monitor transmission lines, remote cameras and weather monitors to gather real time info for awhile and have the lead. It helps make better decisions when shutting off power for wildfires. SCE has started to do this but is behind. PG&E doesn't even have it on their radar...and it's not likely going to happen now given bankruptcy.
I have sounded off on this issue before. The rich are often now cutting the chord from the utilities because (1) connection fees, and (2) more importantly, when the wealthy person is remodeling or building, it is more costly to have your scheduling screwed-up by the unreliable utility. If I lived in NorCal, I would add a third factor which is I can't rely on my utility provider. About 1/2 the construction in the last few years where we live in Laguna cut the cord. I don't think this works presently for your typical residential home, but if batteries keep improving in storage capacity and size reduction, I fear the utility (public or private) will be left serving the lower classes, and the taxpayer will have once again proved subsidies through fees or taxes.concordtom said:sp4149 said:Disagree.concordtom said:
I think within a relatively short time period, solar and storage are going to be so big that it will be cost prohibitive to maintain the Pg&e system.
A couple decades?
Grid parity was achieved in CA some years ago. Solar is now cheaper.
Once storage is similarly available, game over, no need for grid connection. Utilities nationwide go belly up.
And telephone and electricity poles will slowly be removed across the country. Future generations will marvel that we had these lines over our heads (unsightly, not to mention a massive capital project) for over 100 years. It will a vestige of a bygone era.
Agree or Disagree:
The effort to improve battery efficiency has been ongoing for over a hundred years with only a marginal improvement, when what was needed was an ORDER of Magnitude improvement.
Computer technology and electronics technology has seen an order of magnitude improvement every few years;
electrical battery storage has not. Fuel cells were developed over fifty years ago to provide an alternative stored energy source to the battery. Many advantages, including environmental; but they are not an option in a new Tesla. The needed storage upgrade isn't happening soon enough.
McKinsey report says "Defection Day" is coming. By 2028, the nation will see solar + batteries be cheaper than thei local utility.
https://qz.com/1274865/californias-solar-mandate-the-first-of-its-kind-in-the-us-will-hasten-defection-day-from-the-grid/
https://qz.com/1632555/californias-wildfires-may-benefit-home-batteries-and-solar-panels/amp/
This article says utilities are as unprepared for solar+batteries as newspapers were for the internet.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2011/02/28/will-distributed-solar-drive-utilities-into-bankruptcy/#gref
From having dealt with mutual aid for fire support with various state, county, local and district fire Departments, most so-called county Fire Departments do NOT have overall responsibility for fire protection. You mentioned Riverside and it appears to cover the entire county - "Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with CAL FIRE, provides Fire and Emergency Services to residents of unincorporated areas of Riverside County and to our Partner Cities" Actually CalFire is the provider of the bulk of the Fire Fighting capability with an air attack base in Hemet. Pretty much the same as in San Diego, hopefully Riverside County is subsidizing CalFire as much as San Diego is. A truer statement would be "CalFire in co-operation with Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection to unicorporated areas."wifeisafurd said:
You mean like the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Santa Barbara County Fire Department, Ventura County Fire Department, Riverside County Fire Department, and just go up the coast. I think you answered that there still is no San Diego Fire County Fire Department and that Eastern San Diego relies on Cal Fire feuded by grants from the County. Other people can respond to water issues, but this is not a PG&E issue with respect to outdated infrastructure.
The solution is always cubic money for the top .1% in this country. However if local Utility distribution grids are acquired by local governments, they will probably have to set up a special district to finance the bonds needed for acquisition; then guess what, everyone will pay for the 'local' distribution lines in their property tax, not in their monthly bill, including those 'off the grid'. Just like I pay for the local school district even though I have never had a child or dependent in the local schools; the special district assessment will collect funds from all property owners, on the grid or not.wifeisafurd said:I have sounded off on this issue before. The rich are often now cutting the chord from the utilities because (1) connection fees, and (2) more importantly, when the wealthy person is remodeling or building, it is more costly to have your scheduling screwed-up by the unreliable utility. If I lived in NorCal, I would add a third factor which is I can't rely on my utility provider. About 1/2 the construction in the last few years where we live in Laguna cut the cord. I don't think this works presently for your typical residential home, but if batteries keep improving in storage capacity and size reduction, I fear the utility (public or private) will be left serving the lower classes, and the taxpayer will have once again proved subsidies through fees or taxes.concordtom said:sp4149 said:
Disagree.
The effort to improve battery efficiency has been ongoing for over a hundred years with only a marginal improvement, when what was needed was an ORDER of Magnitude improvement.
Computer technology and electronics technology has seen an order of magnitude improvement every few years; electrical battery storage has not. Fuel cells were developed over fifty years ago to provide an alternative stored energy source to the battery. Many advantages, including environmental; but they are not an option in a new Tesla. The needed storage upgrade isn't happening soon enough.
McKinsey report says "Defection Day" is coming. By 2028, the nation will see solar + batteries be cheaper than thei local utility.
https://qz.com/1274865/californias-solar-mandate-the-first-of-its-kind-in-the-us-will-hasten-defection-day-from-the-grid/
https://qz.com/1632555/californias-wildfires-may-benefit-home-batteries-and-solar-panels/amp/
This article says utilities are as unprepared for solar+batteries as newspapers were for the internet.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2011/02/28/will-distributed-solar-drive-utilities-into-bankruptcy/#gref
Your original comment simply is just not correct. San Diego is not some little isolated country like Sonoma County. Let's just talk about LA County fire which serve 50 cities and unincoporated area of just over 4 million residents spread out in over 1.2 million housing units across an area of 2,305 square miles, has a budget in the billions of dollars, and surrounds a large city, just like in San Diego. it has almost 30,000 employees. Funny you didn't mention that. Santa Barbara is another case where the county fire department covers a huge area of land, with its own employees and equipment, surrounding a large city (note 1/3 of the county area is federal land which is under Federal fire jurisdiction). Ventura really doesn't have the same composition of a huge urban area, but it does serve a large swath of unincorporated land and seven of the larger cities in the county, such as Semi Valley, with its own equipment and personnel. If you go up and down the counties with any serious population, this is what you get.sp4149 said:From having dealt with mutual aid for fire support with various state, county, local and district fire Departments, most so-called county Fire Departments do NOT have overall responsibility for fire protection. You mentioned Riverside and it appears to cover the entire county - "Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with CAL FIRE, provides Fire and Emergency Services to residents of unincorporated areas of Riverside County and to our Partner Cities" Actually CalFire is the provider of the bulk of the Fire Fighting capability with an air attack base in Hemet. Pretty much the same as in San Diego, hopefully Riverside County is subsidizing CalFire as much as San Diego is. A truer statement would be "CalFire in co-operation with Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection to unicorporated areas."wifeisafurd said:
You mean like the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Santa Barbara County Fire Department, Ventura County Fire Department, Riverside County Fire Department, and just go up the coast. I think you answered that there still is no San Diego Fire County Fire Department and that Eastern San Diego relies on Cal Fire feuded by grants from the County. Other people can respond to water issues, but this is not a PG&E issue with respect to outdated infrastructure.
Also there are hundreds of thousands of acres of National Forests in Riverside county (and adjacent counties)
these are unicorporated areas outside the jurisdiction of the County Fire Department, cannot be taxed by the county (Federal land) and Congress appropriated fire protection funds for the Forest Service which has the Fire Protection responsibility. Note many High voltage transmission lines pass through Federal Lands on utility easements, and the County Fire departments are not funded (by county taxes) to provide fire protection to DOD lands, BLM lands, Forest Service lands, GSA exclusive jurisdiction lands. This is a major hole in fire protection responsibility in many California counties, including some of the ones with County Fire Departments.
For counties with volunteer fire departments, the Feds are a poor mutual aid partner. Some of these volunteer fire departments require a "retainer" to be able to respond to the increased responsibility of vast Federal Lands. Typically DOD will only pay after the fact for actual fire response, even Cal Fire wanted money up front at one base in Sonoma County. At the moment CalFire appears to be the go to provider for Fire Protection in the unincorporated rural California areas. I imagine that the funding trail is twisted.
I respectfully disagree essentially everything in the first paragraph of your post. There is a basic premise in bond financing that current operating costs are not financed by bonds. You don't want to go there because your bond either won't get bought or will be issued at junk bond rates. All the expense of running the utility is going to have to be paid by ratepayers, and is a substantial cost, either a private or public provider. In fact, LADWP rates are really high, as are those in Glendales/Burbank (these are public utilities I know ).sp4149 said:The solution is always cubic money for the top .1% in this country. However if local Utility distribution grids are acquired by local governments, they will probably have to set up a special district to finance the bonds needed for acquisition; then guess what, everyone will pay for the 'local' distribution lines in their property tax, not in their monthly bill, including those 'off the grid'. Just like I pay for the local school district even though I have never had a child or dependent in the local schools; the special district assessment will collect funds from all property owners, on the grid or not.wifeisafurd said:I have sounded off on this issue before. The rich are often now cutting the chord from the utilities because (1) connection fees, and (2) more importantly, when the wealthy person is remodeling or building, it is more costly to have your scheduling screwed-up by the unreliable utility. If I lived in NorCal, I would add a third factor which is I can't rely on my utility provider. About 1/2 the construction in the last few years where we live in Laguna cut the cord. I don't think this works presently for your typical residential home, but if batteries keep improving in storage capacity and size reduction, I fear the utility (public or private) will be left serving the lower classes, and the taxpayer will have once again proved subsidies through fees or taxes.concordtom said:sp4149 said:
Disagree.
The effort to improve battery efficiency has been ongoing for over a hundred years with only a marginal improvement, when what was needed was an ORDER of Magnitude improvement.
Computer technology and electronics technology has seen an order of magnitude improvement every few years; electrical battery storage has not. Fuel cells were developed over fifty years ago to provide an alternative stored energy source to the battery. Many advantages, including environmental; but they are not an option in a new Tesla. The needed storage upgrade isn't happening soon enough.
McKinsey report says "Defection Day" is coming. By 2028, the nation will see solar + batteries be cheaper than thei local utility.
https://qz.com/1274865/californias-solar-mandate-the-first-of-its-kind-in-the-us-will-hasten-defection-day-from-the-grid/
https://qz.com/1632555/californias-wildfires-may-benefit-home-batteries-and-solar-panels/amp/
This article says utilities are as unprepared for solar+batteries as newspapers were for the internet.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2011/02/28/will-distributed-solar-drive-utilities-into-bankruptcy/#gref
Interesting thing about science, it responds to government pressure if the pressure is accompanied by massive funding. In the science-free zone of GOP politics, I haven't heard of massive funding granted for better storage of solar power projects. The GOP prides itself on opposing unfunded 'obligations' as well as climate change, alternative power, etc... Batteries will continue to be the weak link in alternative power supplies for longer than we would like.
The counties I discussed are ones where I have lived, paid taxes, or negotiated with fire districts on behalf of the Federal Government in the last 30 years, thankfully LA, San Bernardino and Orange counties are not on that short list. Santa Barbara County is on the list but the city is not a large city. Population wise it trails the small town where I was born (Antioch) and is sandwiched at #87 between Santa Monica and ahead of Indio (Riverside) by 110 souls. Chula Vista is part of the San Diego Urban sprawl, surrounded on the sides by the city of San Diego, but is the second largest city in the county with almost 3 times the population of Santa Barbara. I mentioned Chula Vista only because I witnessed Cal Fire responding to a car fire in a strictly urban area, far from their normal fire protection area; this was an example of CalFire expanding their footprint from remote rural areas into the heart of urban California. With underfuunding of fire resources in some areas (like Chula Vista) I see this as a good thing.wifeisafurd said:Your original comment simply is just not correct. San Diego is not some little isolated country like Sonoma County. Let's just talk about LA County fire which serve 50 cities and unincoporated area of just over 4 million residents spread out in over 1.2 million housing units across an area of 2,305 square miles, has a budget in the billions of dollars, and surrounds a large city, just like in San Diego. it has almost 30,000 employees. Funny you didn't mention that. Santa Barbara is another case where the county fire department covers a huge area of land, with its own employees and equipment, surrounding a large city (note 1/3 of the county area is federal land which is under Federal fire jurisdiction). Ventura really doesn't have the same composition of a huge urban area, but it does serve a large swath of unincorporated land and seven of the larger cities in the county, such as Semi Valley, with its own equipment and personnel. If you go up and down the counties with any serious population, this is what you get.sp4149 said:From having dealt with mutual aid for fire support with various state, county, local and district fire Departments, most so-called county Fire Departments do NOT have overall responsibility for fire protection. You mentioned Riverside and it appears to cover the entire county - "Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with CAL FIRE, provides Fire and Emergency Services to residents of unincorporated areas of Riverside County and to our Partner Cities" Actually CalFire is the provider of the bulk of the Fire Fighting capability with an air attack base in Hemet. Pretty much the same as in San Diego, hopefully Riverside County is subsidizing CalFire as much as San Diego is. A truer statement would be "CalFire in co-operation with Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection to unicorporated areas."wifeisafurd said:
You mean like the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Santa Barbara County Fire Department, Ventura County Fire Department, Riverside County Fire Department, and just go up the coast. I think you answered that there still is no San Diego Fire County Fire Department and that Eastern San Diego relies on Cal Fire feuded by grants from the County. Other people can respond to water issues, but this is not a PG&E issue with respect to outdated infrastructure.
Also there are hundreds of thousands of acres of National Forests in Riverside county (and adjacent counties)
these are unicorporated areas outside the jurisdiction of the County Fire Department, cannot be taxed by the county (Federal land) and Congress appropriated fire protection funds for the Forest Service which has the Fire Protection responsibility. Note many High voltage transmission lines pass through Federal Lands on utility easements, and the County Fire departments are not funded (by county taxes) to provide fire protection to DOD lands, BLM lands, Forest Service lands, GSA exclusive jurisdiction lands. This is a major hole in fire protection responsibility in many California counties, including some of the ones with County Fire Departments.
For counties with volunteer fire departments, the Feds are a poor mutual aid partner. Some of these volunteer fire departments require a "retainer" to be able to respond to the increased responsibility of vast Federal Lands. Typically DOD will only pay after the fact for actual fire response, even Cal Fire wanted money up front at one base in Sonoma County. At the moment CalFire appears to be the go to provider for Fire Protection in the unincorporated rural California areas. I imagine that the funding trail is twisted.
But you cherry-picked low population density Riverside County, which is a massive county in terms of size, with huge public land holdings. Equating Riverside, the largest city with about 300K people to the second largest city in the state, San Diego, is unrealistic and incomparable. Yes, Riverside works with Cal Fire, but also has its own service area with its own equipment and personnel. I'm not sure why we are talking about the cities surrounding San Diego, like Chula Vista, as some isolated rural area or a federal park area. This is off on a tangent.
What I did say was -wifeisafurd said:I respectfully disagree essentially everything in the first paragraph of your post. There is a basic premise in bond financing that current operating costs are not financed by bonds. You don't want to go there because your bond either won't get bought or will be issued at junk bond rates. All the expense of running the utility is going to have to be paid by ratepayers, and is a substantial cost, either a private or public provider. In fact, LADWP rates are really high, as are those in Glendales/Burbank (these are public utilities I know ).sp4149 said:wifeisafurd said:concordtom said:sp4149 said:
Disagree.
The effort to improve battery efficiency has been ongoing for over a hundred years with only a marginal improvement, when what was needed was an ORDER of Magnitude improvement.
Computer technology and electronics technology has seen an order of magnitude improvement every few years; electrical battery storage has not. Fuel cells were developed over fifty years ago to provide an alternative stored energy source to the battery. Many advantages, including environmental; but they are not an option in a new Tesla. The needed storage upgrade isn't happening soon enough.
The solution is always cubic money for the top .1% in this country. However if local Utility distribution grids are acquired by local governments, they will probably have to set up a special district to finance the bonds needed for acquisition; then guess what, everyone will pay for the 'local' distribution lines in their property tax, not in their monthly bill, including those 'off the grid'. Just like I pay for the local school district even though I have never had a child or dependent in the local schools; the special district assessment will collect funds from all property owners, on the grid or not.
Interesting thing about science, it responds to government pressure if the pressure is accompanied by massive funding. In the science-free zone of GOP politics, I haven't heard of massive funding granted for better storage of solar power projects. The GOP prides itself on opposing unfunded 'obligations' as well as climate change, alternative power, etc... Batteries will continue to be the weak link in alternative power supplies for longer than we would like.
So let's talk about the ability to set-up a district in areas that have moved to cut off the utility. You are not a water district where the law is set-up for you. Let's go over the practical problem first.
Forming a Public Power Utility - American Public Power ...https://www.publicpower.org system files documents municipalizati... Just so you know even a company as bad as PG&E has succeeded in killing a vote for a portion of the service district being acquired. So the reality in California is you need a government agency like a city to win an election and set up a specula utility district. This is not happening in wealthy areas. Why would they want a special district if everyone can afford to be on their own? And why would anyone vote there vote to do so. So basically you are setting up a district with poor demographics, which is supposed to go out and sell bonds, after it takes years to set up this new entity, organize and staff it. Like any major undertaking, there are huge costs involved that would have to be borne by the public ratepayers, both upfront and on an ongoing basis. But there are big costs for ratepayers either way. They are on the hook for major investments in these poor areas under a private utilities as well. But what you did is have them instead pay at today's value, as opposed to paying on historical costs. So issuing bonds for utility plant is not somehow a wash (and this is the most favorable argument), though the start-up costs are accelerated to the ratepayer, since they are not bond funded, and the debt service cost is much much higher. And it get worse. Odds are city agencies don't even come close to the credit rating of a SCE or SDG&E and have to borrow at much higher rates.
Of course, merely changing control won't solve the problems caused by decades of neglect. You seem to think that public ownership automatically translates into trouble-free utilities. Because...........? Those of served by the city-owned Los Angeles Department of Water and Power can attest that is nonsense. Public agencies are equally susceptible to bungling basic administrative duties and recklessly deferring maintenance in the face of public pressure to keep rates low. Just as shareholder-owners want more profits, ratepayer-owners want lower bills, and politicians that impact public company rates know this. The difference with publicly owned utilities is that there is more transparency and accountability when they screw up (maybe not with LA, but certainly in Glendale/Burbank).
Then there seems to be your assertion that the bond cost is passed on to the property owner. Well that doesn't happen in any of the public utilities in California. There is Proposition 218. There is a constitutional voter approval requirements for all local government taxes (and bond payments like these are public taxes which is why they appear on your ballot). Let's say you win the vote, which often specials districts are finding is not a given (take a look at what happened to LA Unified School District). But it gets worse. Article XIII D of Prop 218 added a constitutional assessment and property-related fee reforms applicable to all local governments which also previously did not exist. This includes numerous additional requirements for special benefit assessments on real property as well as numerous requirements for property-related fees and charges, such as utility fees imposed by local governments which are no longer allowed to exceed the cost of providing the utility service. The problem is utility serve is based primary on usage which varies by household, and also other things like type how the property is used. So when you start wanting one uniform fee you can show investors you can collect, well that is doesn't pass legal requirements. I guess you could say we change get bond charge every qauarter. Fine, go back have an election every quarter. Bond investors will just love that. And with utilities, either private or public, there are rate subsidies for the poor or other desired folks, conservation rates, and a lot of other things that mean you will never meet the requirements of Prop 218, which is the fee amount from the bond has to be reasonably related to the service the property receives. What do you do with a property owner that has no service from the utility since the cut the cord or vacant land? Their service value is the same as Cal scored against Utah. Zero. Wasn't the point that you could force these folks to pay off the bonds. Will you can't. This is not some sewer district that has connections at ever property, including vacant land, and charges a connection fee for simply the cost of the electrical connection funded with a bond. You bought a whole freaking utility system by bonds under your plan, which now the lower class ratepayers can pay for. Way to raise their rates eve more.
As for last paragraph, you and take up the battery issue and the GOP with Tom.
.
wifeisafurd said:I have sounded off on this issue before. The rich are often now cutting the chord from the utilities because (1) connection fees, and (2) more importantly, when the wealthy person is remodeling or building, it is more costly to have your scheduling screwed-up by the unreliable utility. If I lived in NorCal, I would add a third factor which is I can't rely on my utility provider. About 1/2 the construction in the last few years where we live in Laguna cut the cord. I don't think this works presently for your typical residential home, but if batteries keep improving in storage capacity and size reduction, I fear the utility (public or private) will be left serving the lower classes, and the taxpayer will have once again proved subsidies through fees or taxes.concordtom said:sp4149 said:Disagree.concordtom said:
I think within a relatively short time period, solar and storage are going to be so big that it will be cost prohibitive to maintain the Pg&e system.
A couple decades?
Grid parity was achieved in CA some years ago. Solar is now cheaper.
Once storage is similarly available, game over, no need for grid connection. Utilities nationwide go belly up.
And telephone and electricity poles will slowly be removed across the country. Future generations will marvel that we had these lines over our heads (unsightly, not to mention a massive capital project) for over 100 years. It will a vestige of a bygone era.
Agree or Disagree:
The effort to improve battery efficiency has been ongoing for over a hundred years with only a marginal improvement, when what was needed was an ORDER of Magnitude improvement.
Computer technology and electronics technology has seen an order of magnitude improvement every few years;
electrical battery storage has not. Fuel cells were developed over fifty years ago to provide an alternative stored energy source to the battery. Many advantages, including environmental; but they are not an option in a new Tesla. The needed storage upgrade isn't happening soon enough.
McKinsey report says "Defection Day" is coming. By 2028, the nation will see solar + batteries be cheaper than thei local utility.
https://qz.com/1274865/californias-solar-mandate-the-first-of-its-kind-in-the-us-will-hasten-defection-day-from-the-grid/
https://qz.com/1632555/californias-wildfires-may-benefit-home-batteries-and-solar-panels/amp/
This article says utilities are as unprepared for solar+batteries as newspapers were for the internet.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2011/02/28/will-distributed-solar-drive-utilities-into-bankruptcy/#gref
50% of the the folks pulling permits in our area (Emerald Bay which technically is a beach community with a Laguna Beach address, but governed by a HOA/County , not the City) per the solar subs. And yes, they are absolutely off the grid. We are in construction on an empty lot in EBay, and when we talked to the solar subs, we were shocked. The batteries take up a room, and are not cheap, and you need a lot of solar panels. But it is feasible and being pushed by contractors. And unlike what we are building, the houses on the beach side of Coast Highway can be a absurdly big (and are owned by insanely rich people, some of whom see themselves as disrupter types), so the cost of the batteries versus construction delays and costs/connection fees, is relatively cheaper. We are not going to spend 70K and lose a room of our 3,200 square foot beauty to be - we are going old school staying on the grid. But as the technology gets cheaper and the utilities less reliable, I can see homebuilders putting these systems in higher end houses, and getting tax credits for doing so in what will be a great irony.concordtom said:wifeisafurd said:I have sounded off on this issue before. The rich are often now cutting the chord from the utilities because (1) connection fees, and (2) more importantly, when the wealthy person is remodeling or building, it is more costly to have your scheduling screwed-up by the unreliable utility. If I lived in NorCal, I would add a third factor which is I can't rely on my utility provider. About 1/2 the construction in the last few years where we live in Laguna cut the cord. I don't think this works presently for your typical residential home, but if batteries keep improving in storage capacity and size reduction, I fear the utility (public or private) will be left serving the lower classes, and the taxpayer will have once again proved subsidies through fees or taxes.concordtom said:sp4149 said:Disagree.concordtom said:
I think within a relatively short time period, solar and storage are going to be so big that it will be cost prohibitive to maintain the Pg&e system.
A couple decades?
Grid parity was achieved in CA some years ago. Solar is now cheaper.
Once storage is similarly available, game over, no need for grid connection. Utilities nationwide go belly up.
And telephone and electricity poles will slowly be removed across the country. Future generations will marvel that we had these lines over our heads (unsightly, not to mention a massive capital project) for over 100 years. It will a vestige of a bygone era.
Agree or Disagree:
The effort to improve battery efficiency has been ongoing for over a hundred years with only a marginal improvement, when what was needed was an ORDER of Magnitude improvement.
Computer technology and electronics technology has seen an order of magnitude improvement every few years;
electrical battery storage has not. Fuel cells were developed over fifty years ago to provide an alternative stored energy source to the battery. Many advantages, including environmental; but they are not an option in a new Tesla. The needed storage upgrade isn't happening soon enough.
McKinsey report says "Defection Day" is coming. By 2028, the nation will see solar + batteries be cheaper than thei local utility.
https://qz.com/1274865/californias-solar-mandate-the-first-of-its-kind-in-the-us-will-hasten-defection-day-from-the-grid/
https://qz.com/1632555/californias-wildfires-may-benefit-home-batteries-and-solar-panels/amp/
This article says utilities are as unprepared for solar+batteries as newspapers were for the internet.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2011/02/28/will-distributed-solar-drive-utilities-into-bankruptcy/#gref
When you say, estimate) 1/2 have cut the cord, are you saying they've installed solar and have a grid-tied system, or that they are 109% off grid?
Because if the latter, then what are they doing for juice at night when the sun don't shine? I do not believe that battery storage is large enough or been around long enough to power Laguna's 4000 SF beauties. Thus, you must be referring to the former, no?
When I got quotes a couple of months back the Tesla powerwalls were closer to $10K installed in San Diego. The LG Chem batteries were about 20% cheaper.concordtom said:
I'll have to look up emerald bay.
Also, what is the battery they are using?
Brand, power, how many?
That's what I want to do someday.
EDIT: And I'm understanding your solar sub story better. The houses going 100% off grid are devoting a ROOM of batteries! Wow.
I've seen pieces where people install 2-3 Tesla powerwalls at $7500 each (I think that price is accurate), but a ROOM of them?
At at the prices I saw (next post below), yeah, why not. Only constraint is SF needed. And if you *only* have 3200 SF, makes sense. Beachfront real estate is always tight, and there would be height restrictions, too. Maybe go digging and shove it all down there with your wine seller.
