Should essential services be publicly owned

Quote: petroglyph

With anybody and everybody capitalizing on PG&E's facility's, who is going to pay the lawsuits to the family's if the fires were determined to be caused by improper maintenance?

When the lines are rebuilt on the taxpayer's dime, the way it works is all the private interests go back to harvesting $ at taxpayer expense. Since company X.Y, and Z all are selling services that are carried on PG&E's poles and row, should they assume part of the settlement, or should the taxpayers pay?

When a publicly owned power utility is found to have been at fault for their lines starting a fire, it doesn't take long for claims to be paid and business continues.

In a case where say ten different sellers of power are all on the exact same wire, who's to blame for the fire?

In PA the power providers never actually touch the lines. All installation and maintenance is done by the company that owns the lines, so I imagine they would be responsible.

Quote: petroglyph

With anybody and everybody capitalizing on PG&E's facility's, who is going to pay the lawsuits to the family's if the fires were determined to be caused by improper maintenance?

When the lines are rebuilt on the taxpayer's dime, the way it works is all the private interests go back to harvesting $ at taxpayer expense. Since company X.Y, and Z all are selling services that are carried on PG&E's poles and row, should they assume part of the settlement, or should the taxpayers pay?

The owner of the lines is solely responsible for the lines. No different than if a railroad car derails you do not sue the party who had the cargo onboard.

As to the fires, it is probably bad forest management that is most to blame.

Quote: AZDuffman

The owner of the lines is solely responsible for the lines. No different than if a railroad car derails you do not sue the party who had the cargo onboard.

If Warren Buffett's railcars spill ten tankers of oil, doesn't BH get sued?

Quote:

As to the fires, it is probably bad forest management that is most to blame.

I think everybody and their dog will eventually get sued. It doesn't seem right if the owner of the poles/lines has to maintain the easement and the lines, has to be responsible when so many other vendors by law get to use the lines.

Say the owner of the wire, doesn't have any customers on that line, only tertiary providers. If it weren't for the other providers, the line would be de energized?

A different example which I think is different in different states. Ex. someone borrows my car and runs over someone. In Ak. it is the car owners fault. In Wa. state, it is the drivers fault.

If it is my powerline, I could say to joe provider, go ahead I'm not using it, sell some juice if you get a buyer. Until then our generation is down while we change the oil. Until the alternate provider put juice on the line, it was benign, wouldn't hurt a squirrel. The alternate provider finds a customer up squawk canyon and fires it up, then burns the world down. How is that the powerline owners fault, when the law [deregulation] makes him by law, allow other providers to use his equipment.

At least in the example of the rr, someone owned it individually [corporately]. The power company has no control over who's using it's stuff.

Coincidentally, I just had my tv on with RT "American Lawyer" on in the background, and they started discussing the liability of pge with the fires.

Quote: petroglyph

If Warren Buffett's railcars spill ten tankers of oil, doesn't BH get sued?

He should not. The people at fault would be the RR or whomever he contracted out to haul the oil in their tanker car. It would depend on if it was bad track or a fault in the car.

Quote:

I think everybody and their dog will eventually get sued. It doesn't seem right if the owner of the poles/lines has to maintain the easement and the lines, has to be responsible when so many other vendors by law get to use the lines.

But why? He owns the lines and charges a fee for the service of moving the current as we are not communists. The fee he charges helps to cover the cost of maintaining the lines. If he does not like the arrangement he may sell the lines to someone else who wants the concession.

Quote:

If it is my powerline, I could say to joe provider, go ahead I'm not using it, sell some juice if you get a buyer. Until then our generation is down while we change the oil. Until the alternate provider put juice on the line, it was benign, wouldn't hurt a squirrel. The alternate provider finds a customer up squawk canyon and fires it up, then burns the world down. How is that the powerline owners fault, when the law [deregulation] makes him by law, allow other providers to use his equipment.

See above.

Public. Essential services should be public, accountable, and not have the extra load of profit/shareholder requirements to meet. Regulate prices, provide for improvements, maintenance, and New lines in the rates charged.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Public. Essential services should be public, accountable, and not have the extra load of profit/shareholder requirements to meet. Regulate prices, provide for improvements, maintenance, and New lines in the rates charged.

So where does this end? Should the grocery store be public since food is essential? What is wrong with making a profit?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Public. Essential services should be public, accountable, and not have the extra load of profit/shareholder requirements to meet. Regulate prices, provide for improvements, maintenance, and New lines in the rates charged.

It is far from proven that public services are cheaper. The 'extra load' of profit is usually more than offset by the inefficiencies of a government bureaucracy.

Quote: kenarman

It is far from proven that public services are cheaper. The 'extra load' of profit is usually more than offset by the inefficiencies of a government bureaucracy.

It is also not some "corporation" keeping the profits. It is folks like myself who have a good portion of their retirements invested in utilities for their stable returns. CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE!

Quote: AZDuffman

But why? He owns the lines and charges a fee for the service of moving the current as we are not communists. The fee he charges helps to cover the cost of maintaining the lines. If he does not like the arrangement he may sell the lines to someone else who wants the concession.

But under deregulation, he doesn't have a choice. Anyone can use the lines.

The deregulation in this case is not fair. The owner/builder of the lines has immense stranded capital that their prices must reflect. A competitor can sell to customers without that cost or liability cost. No way can the owner compete, selling power over his own lines. That's how Enron scorched the earth in the same area.

The same thing happened with communication lines up north. ACS, a premier local company quit putting phone lines into developments, because GCI could use the facility and undersell them on their own equipment.

That's powerline socialism.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is also not some "corporation" keeping the profits. It is folks like myself who have a good portion of their retirements invested in utilities for their stable returns. CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE!

Do you think taxpayers should have to pick up the losses for the PG&E fires, as these latest fires will bankrupt them?

Are you supporting privatized profits and socialized losses?