MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘PG&E’

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: California Governor Names ‘Genius’ Feminist Studies Graduate to Transform California’s Power Sector

Posted by M. C. on November 10, 2019

As Kalifornia goes, so goes the nation.

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/11/california-governor-names-genius.html#more

Well, you knew this was going to happen.

Thanks to all kinds of regulations, the California power company with a state-granted monopoly, PG&E,  and other monopoly power companies in other regions, are resorting to shutting off power to millions when there is a threat that high winds may knockdown wires and cause fires.

The state has reacted, not by opening up the regions to more competition, which would most certainly include power suppliers who would provide the correct type of power lines to the high wind regions that would not be susceptible to the winds.

Instead, California Governor Gavin Newsom is going more statist.

He has named a new energy czar, Ana Matosantos. No doubt, new regulations are on their way that will distort and suffocate energy production even more with the heavy arm of the state at the helm.

But who is  Ana Matosantos?
Is she perhaps familiar with free markets and how they work so that her totalitarian rule over the energy sector will be lite?

Unfortunately, it does not appear that way.

 Ana Matosantos

K. Lloyd Billingsley at the Independent Institute provides a bit of background on the lady who will be in charge of the power switches.

Key snippets:

“PG&E as we know it cannot persist and continue,” proclaimed California governor Gavin Newsom last Friday. “It has to be completely transformed, culturally transformed, operationally transformed, with a safety culture first and foremost.”

Embattled and enflamed Californians might wonder how this complete transformation is to be achieved. On Friday, Gov. Newsom provided the answer when he named his cabinet secretary Ana Matosantos the new “Energy Czar.” Gov. Newsom is on record that his cabinet secretary is a “genius” and Capitol Weekly explains that Matosantos “makes the trains run on time.”

A Puerto Rico native from a wealthy family, Matosantos earned a BA in political science and feminist studies from Stanford. Those were rather meager qualifications for state finance director, but Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger picked Matosantos for that post in 2009. In 2011, she was busted for drunk driving in Sacramento, but Gov. Jerry Brown refused to accept her resignation. Matosantos served nearly four years as Brown’s chief budget advisor, and her tenure was marked by “multibillion-dollar shortfalls.”

Covered California, the state’s wholly owned subsidiary of Obamacare, the so-called “Affordable Care Act,” then took on Matosantos at $120,000 for a six-month stint. Her performance did nothing to prevent Covered California from becoming what health journalist Emily Bazar described as “widespread consumer misery.”

In 2016, Congress passed the PROMESA legislation to deal with Puerto Rico’s $72 billion debt, and the legislation created the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Board. San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi favored Matosantos for a board post, and President Obama duly appointed her. It was not disclosed that Matosantos was also on the board of the Matosantos Commercial Corporation, owned by her wealthy family, with deep interests in the energy business on the island.

According to Christopher D. Coursen, former counsel of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, the Oversight Board “has been a complete failure and has not achieved anything of significance.” President Trump and Congress need to replace members “clearly unfit to serve” with those dedicated to restoring fiscal responsibility in Puerto Rico. “Given the recent evidence of blatant conflicts of interest of Ana Matosantos,” Coursen said, “her removal seems like the best place to start. And that review and her subsequent removal needs to happen now.”

Hint to my friends in the California hills. Your only option, other than moving, is this.

RW

Be seeing you

News from California, the nation and world - Los Angeles Times

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

PG&E’s Failures Show the Dangers of Government-Imposed Utility Monopolies | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2019

When a company screws up so horribly, letting down literally millions of its customers and moreover promising to continue doing so for another decade (!), the obvious question is: Why don’t they go out of business? Why doesn’t a competitor grab their market share?

The answer, of course, is that the California government forbids PG&E’s customers from switching to a competitor.

If we see the benefits of competition in trivial goods like soda and cereal, we should all the more so insist on competition for essentials like electricity and drinking water.

https://mises.org/wire/pges-failures-show-dangers-government-imposed-utility-monopolies?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=91ad2769b8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-91ad2769b8-228343965

Although the roughly two million affected residents of Northern California are recovering from the rolling blackouts imposed by utility PG&E, the company has warned that these “fire safety outages” may be periodically required for another decade. Naturally, California Governor Gavin Newsom decried the debacle as yet another example of “greed and neglect.” Yet as IER analyst Jordan McGillis explained in a previous article, the episode actually showcases the dangers of a government-imposed monopoly in electricity provision. In this article, I’ll elaborate on McGillis’ insights and show why the conventional economic rationale for government regulation of electric utilities is fundamentally flawed.

PG&E’s Rolling Blackouts Not a Free-Market Outcome

When a company screws up so horribly, letting down literally millions of its customers and moreover promising to continue doing so for another decade (!), the obvious question is: Why don’t they go out of business? Why doesn’t a competitor grab their market share?

The answer, of course, is that the California government forbids PG&E’s customers from switching to a competitor. Let me quote directly from McGillis who gets to the heart of the matter:

PG&E does not function as would a company in a competitive marketplace. As a regulated monopoly, it has been granted status as the sole provider of electricity to a swath of the state stretching more than 500 miles from Eureka, north of the Bay Area, to Bakersfield, in the San Joaquin Valley. The company operates in tandem with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), a panel of regulators appointed by the governor. Unlike in a competitive marketplace, PG&E does not need to compete for customers by offering more value dollar-for-dollar than other companies. Instead PG&E is guaranteed a rate of return on its investments and establishes with the CPUC the corresponding rates that customers will pay.

So we’ve solved the most immediate puzzle: The reason PG&E can get away with such outrageous mismanagement and shoddy customer service, is that the California government literally guarantees them their business. It is illegal for another company to try to entice PG&E’s disgruntled customers to switch their patronage.

Companies in an Open Market Love Periods of “High Demand”

Although the outrageous episode of PG&E is fresh in our minds, this is nothing unusual. Every summer, it is commonplace for utilities to urge their customers to “conserve power” by keeping their air conditioners at an uncomfortable setting, and they often impose rolling blackouts or “brownouts” in order to maintain the integrity of the grid.

Notice that you never see this type of behavior from genuinely private sector companies? Even though people greatly increase their consumption of beer and hot dogs during July, you never see Budweiser or Oscar Mayer imposing temporary outages on their customers.

On the contrary, companies in an open market love it when the public suddenly wants to buy more of their product or service. It’s only in the realm of government-regulated utilities (or services directly provided by a government agency) where the customers are viewed as annoying nuisances, who need to be scolded to stop consuming so much.

Different Incentives, Different Results

Any adult American reading my article surely can agree—regardless of your politics—that I am speaking the truth. To repeat, you simply do not see private companies in (relatively) open markets operating the way PG&E and other “public utilities” do. So the mismanagement and shoddy service of PG&E can’t possibly be the fault merely of corporate greed and neglect. Rather, the difference is due to the institutional structure and incentives that the government sets up…

Conclusion

The PG&E debacle showcases the flaws of government-regulated monopolies. This is not an isolated incident, but is typical of the entire model. Yes, there are practical reasons that free and open competition might not work as smoothly with services requiring large infrastructure spending, but these complications pale in comparison to the dangers of having government outlaw competition. If we see the benefits of competition in trivial goods like soda and cereal, we should all the more so insist on competition for essentials like electricity and drinking water.

Be seeing you

Monopolies In A Stateless Society - The Art of Not Being ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

California’s Electric Vehicle Dream Is Turning Into A Nightmare | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on October 24, 2019

Forest fires, no water, no electric, massive deficits.

Solution: Open the border, give away free stuff, screw US citizens.

Why do you always read about California’s electric cars and not Montana’s nor Pennsylvania’s? Here is the chilling answer. Note it is a pro-electric, mild winter UK source. Your real life experience may be different.

Your summer weather, windows up, no accessories running, no AC, maybe one passenger mileage takes hit.

Happy winter charging.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/californias-electric-vehicle-dream-turning-nightmare

Twitter Facebook Reddit Email

California might be blazing a trail with getting a large number of electric vehicles on the road, but the only trail California is currently blazing is the wildfire/PG&E fiasco that could once again plunge millions of Californians into the dark in the next wave of blackouts, expected today, the likes of which could sour investor confidence in purchasing a vehicle that relies on sketchy power sources.

It’s windy in dry California, and apparently that’s enough to trigger another preemptive blackout for PG&E customers. For starters, PG&E will cut power to 179,000 residents on Wednesday.

But it’s not just PG&E. Other utilities, too, such as Edison International and Sempra, are also expected to cut off power to hundreds of thousands of Californians who are in an area that is notoriously dry, with winds expected to combine with those dry conditions to create too much of a fire risk.

The result? A blackout akin to the Venezuela 2019 blackouts that kept millions in the dark.

The blackouts – which one might expect from a third-world or mismanaged nation such as Venezuela or even Pakistan, which leads the world in the number of annual blackouts – are life and death for some California residents, and the problem isn’t expected to be resolved anytime soon. But it also may mean life and death for California’s plan to encourage residents to adopt EVs.

Unlike third-world blackouts, critical California operations such as medical facilities are all equipped with backup generators for times of outage. But residents who rely on electricity to power medical devices are at great risk. And EV owners may find themselves stranded.

The PG&E purposeful blackouts are part of a wildfire safety program that the state-mandated after the wine country fires that overtook $9.4 billion in property. The cause of that fire, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, was PG&E equipment. PG&E points the finger at the usual suspect: climate change.

As for those electric vehicles that various California state agencies have earmarked $2.46 billion in public funds for—the state might do better to spend that money on some plan to keep the lights on. If that thought is not palatable enough for Californians, the state could earmark those funds as a way to keep those EVs charged.

Be seeing you

?u=https2.bp.blogspot.com-syMxodJH0dcW8MguYn0krIAAAAAAAA8mwHuYYKcqMwZAm-nNdlK2tOqsRLxURvnaFgCLcBGAss640Honduras-1.jpg&f=1

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »