Outside of some kind of fluke power surge from a nearby lightning strike which fried both gateway computers in our 2 solar systems we've been fortunate. Now I've got a whole house surge protector on both systems. Knock on wood. Systems just chug along.
Unfortunately public interest is permanently at odds with the interest of any public utility monopoly. There's a narrow overlap of interests in terms of having a reliable grid but it is in the interest of the power company especially their Executives and stockholders to make as much money from the system as they possibly can. This is a conflict of interest not too dissimilar from health insurance companies, where it is necessary if you're going to maximize profits to either screw patients or clinicians or some of both. Since we allow conflict of interest routinely in this country, why shouldn't we allow it in terms of the grid?
Utilities are natural monopolies since it is inefficient to install multiple sets of wires or pipes to houses. In return for this monopoly, utilities must be regulated to avoid abuse. Unfortunately, for-profit utilities are constantly trying to game the system to use their monopoly power to increase profits. (Actually, this is a good argument for public, non-profit, ownership of utilities.)
Your talking points against solar have been promoted by utilities who see solar as a threat.
Texas is having problems because the producers are insufficiently regulated. The grid must be hardened to deal with once in 10, 20 or 50 year cold snaps but companies won't make the investments because they'd rather bet that it's not going to happen this year or next year. And if a cold snap does not occur, the companies that make insufficient investments in power generation infrastructure will be able to underbid the companies that designed their generation properly, and are rewarded financially for doing so.
As long as the playing field is level for producers, because the government has forced them to make the same investments against very cold and very hot weather, the power producer market can benefit from competition. But then there is the transmission and distribution market. It doesn't make sense to have different transmission and distribution networks because this would cost a lot more to build and maintain. Plus, no community would tolerate multiple networks of power lines and transformers all over the place. Have you looked at your electricity bill? Most of the charges on it are not generation charges but transmission charges.
I agree.
Which is an absolute joke, given that the Dakotas have plenty of wind sources that do not freeze, because unlike in Texas, they built them so they wouldn't freeze.
The reason CA's electricity costs so much is a combination of regulatory capture and bailouts. After starting so many fires, PG&E should have gone fully bankrupt, its shareholders should have been wiped out, and if the state had to pay the victims of the fires, it should have taken control of the grid and operated it in the interest of the citizens. The portion of the electricity bills dedicated to paying dividends to shareholders and bonuses to CEOs would have stopped as well. Look at the rates of Silicon Valley Power and Palo Alto Utilities (both city-owned utilities) and compare them to the likes of PG&E and SDG&E.
Certainly you must understand that there are certain areas (utilities, public health, tragedy of the commons, etc.) where you just don't have a free and open market with everyone having access and information. In these cases you must have effective government regulation.
(Public health, not healthcare.)I see you trying to sneak healthcare into this discussion, I'm not touching that one.
The major difference is that you and I draw that line WAY differently.
Me - I think government is THE MOST INEFFICIENT utilizer of resources, and is horrible at innovation (they don't innovate for the most part).
Also - drop the "mutliple lines to each house" bit. I never proposed that. I put forth the TX model, where there is still ONE COMPANY (heavily regulated) that builds the wires. But multiple companies that can plug into that infrastructure and sell power along it. Tesla Energy is even a power producer now in TX. One that allows their customers (powerwall owners and rooftop solar) to get a cut of the profits. That model is absolutely impossible in California, not without still going through the monopolistic entities like SDG&E and PG&E to get a cut.
Didn't the government make money on the GM bailout when it sold its stake several years later? I don't have issues with a car company being publicly traded the same way I do with a public utility that operates in a market that is a natural monopoly.
It's my understanding that CPUC guarantees utilities some fixed profit (in %) for any capital they spend on projects like upgrading power lines or building new power plants (yes, PG&E is a generator as well as a grid operator). If that's true then that's absolutely nuts. It's worse than encouraging them to not be competitive, it actually gives them an incentive to be inefficient, because a fixed % of a bigger number is a larger profit. Proper way to do this IMHO (if we're going to still use the IOU model) is to estimate what it should cost and if they overrun, make sure they stay out of bankruptcy BUT any cost overruns eat into:
