Hacker News Reader

Why is it people will argue that there should be fewer regulations to allow companies more freedom to operate but when those companies, unsurprisingly, put money ahead of safety, it’s then the government’s fault for not regulating those companies?

At some point companies need to take responsibility and be held accountable for their (in)actions. I know this is an unpopular opinion for HN, given its venture funding roots, but companies shouldn’t be given a free pass every time they screw up due to placing greed above all else.

I don’t think you understood my comment. PG&E is as regulated as you can possibly get without literally being part of government. When PG&E wants to spend $100M on maintenance, it has to ask government for permission, and CPUC needs to approve this expense.

My point here is not to argue that with less regulation, PG&E would do better job when it comes to maintenance — I don’t know if it would. However, considering how deeply regulated it actually is, and how much the regulator controls everything it does, some blame must also be placed on the regulator’s side.

> When PG&E wants to spend $100M on maintenance, it has to ask government for permission, and CPUC needs to approve this expense.

...and did they ask? It's their job to ask. You can't blame the oversight organization's interference if it didn't interfere.

If you have to ask a government committee every time you go to washroom, you will notice a significant drop in your washroom visits.

if people die when I stop going to the washroom, I am willing to evaluate the idea that I may have some culpability in deciding to not do that

Getting approval once per campaign, or maybe every few months, is pretty different from petty micromanagment.

There's definitely an observable issue with Californian electricity supplies being significantly worse than in other parts of the world, which have more liberalised transmission operator firms.

Is it more liberalised in other parts of the world though? That’s not usually the case for Europe and China (the next two biggest global economies). Perhaps it might be true specifically with regards to electricity supply but I would be very surprised if that were the case knowing how the U.K. likes to regulate similar services which I have directly been employed by.

> PG&E would love to spend more money on maintenance

Yeah, their series of felony convictions for violating the law regarding maintenance, and obstructing investigations into those failures, tells a very different story.

IMO, this is the most important comment here (so far) in understanding the investment & maintenance decision making and constaints of PG&E.

From the linked CPUC Decision Making in the above comment, there are multiple examples where PG&E have advocated for increased spending for safety purposes, but organisations such as the Division of Ratepayer Advocates and The Utility Reform Network were pushing back. Ultimately, however, it is the CPUC that weighs the arguments of the different parties and determines allowable spending.

> PG&E operates based on decisions of California Public Utilities Commission...

As clarification, your statement makes it sound like CPUC makes unilateral decisions about what PG&E can or cannot do when, in fact, CPUC makes those decisions based on requests made by PG&E. While CPUC does have a certain level of decision making power, a lot of their decisions are made based on what PG&E says is the right/necessary thing to do.

> If California doesn't like PG&E making ... profit.. it should set lower profit target, and allow PG&E spend more money on maintenance

Who makes decisions at the CPUC? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is circular logic.

Political appointees who have enormous incentives to keep electricity prices as low as possible.

And yet California has one of the highest electricity costs in the country. Things definitely don’t add up.