Comment by abeppu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by abeppu | Hacker News Reader

The author mentions the cost of buying out the distribution network, and cites SF's failed attempt to do this. The author tries to figure out the price for Walnut Creek's grid based on inflation and population -- but the $2.5B figure this is based off was rejected by PG&E. The messed up thing is PG&E as a monopoly can set the price wherever they like -- and they can demand substantial continuing payments to connect to the grid so long as they retain it.

> PG&E continues to demand huge payments on routine power grid connections. For example, the cost to comply with PG&E’s latest requirements for the City to use public power to connect streetlights, traffic signals and other small loads would exceed $1 billion.

https://www.publicpowersf.org/en/faq

I think either we need the political will to use eminent domain to take the grid back (i.e. set the price through a legal proceeding), or we'd need to build a duplicate distribution grid and then abandon PG&E.

Yes, the fact that PG&E rejected the offer is why I adjusted the figure for Walnut Creek's population and then increased it by 50%. The fact is muni borrowing is cheap - even if PG&E charged $1 billion we could finance that for about six cents per kilowatt hour.

I don't think the CPUC will let them get away with "we won't sell at any price" - I think the regulators would force them to sell at some price.

> I don't think the CPUC will let them get away with "we won't sell at any price" - I think the regulators would force them to sell at some price.

Has the CPUC forced such a sale before? Functionally, if PG&E can just safely gauge what's likely to be out of reach for each city, they can name a price detached from reality and be confident of maintaining their stranglehold.

PG&E surely knows that if it lets one city do this, then more will follow quickly. It will be left with the least profitable regions and cities that can't afford to/don't have the credit for this transition. That would ultimately leave the remaining customers in an even less affordable position.

Maybe these expensive-to-serve regions need a different model of power generation.

Or living so far from civilization, especially in a state where wildfires have been part of the ecosystem for millions of years.

Altadena isn't exactly far from civilization. The point isn't that wild fires happen, it's that maybe these little places should go "off grid" so everybody can get a lower price. Everybody but them probably.

Possibly, but that's orthogonal to my comment. Point is that there will still be cities that have to shoulder PG&E costs not because they have fires but because they can't afford to purchase and maintain their own grid, or don't have the political strength to get it done.

Unfortunately most of the CPUC worked at PGE, the people that understand energy regulation are usually energy folks. And so the CPUC is typically quite understanding of PG&E’s pleas, they approved every single rate hike they’ve proposed. 5 times last year alone.

Why use eminent domain to seize their garbage, crumbling infrastructure?

Instead, slowly build out, in parallel, the upgraded – which is to say, underground – infrastructure that PG&E refuses to build.

A community could do this opportunistically on a schedule that tracks the normal repaving of roads.

Recent public infrastructure and construction history in the states is full of failures, missed deadlines and projects running over budget. Unfortunately this causes a loss of appetite when it comes to long term slow builds.

I’m not specifically familiar with PG&E but the whole point of a rare case with regulators is that they cannot set the price at whatever they want. They need regulatory approval of the rate.

The build a duplicate distribution grid is effectively what Ann Arbor is doing with its Sustainable Energy Utility, approved by voters in November [1].

[1] https://www.a2gov.org/sustainability-innovations-home/sustai...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com