FRESH

Hacker News

San Francisco Weighs PG&E Takeover Amid Soaring Utility Costs

70 points by cdrnsf

by infotainment

5 subcomments

The angle of this that people may not realize is that San Francisco already owns the power generation (ie, the Hetch Hetchy dam). [1]
PG&E simply owns the wires, and overcharges for their use.
[1]: https://www.sfpuc.gov/about-us/our-systems/hetch-hetchy-powe...

by rahimnathwani

0 subcomment

If you move to San Francisco and get electricity (from PG&E) then you will be automatically signed up to buy your electricity from the city, instead of from PG&E. You'll still pay PG&E for delivering the electricity.
This results in:
- higher cost (because SFPUC charges more for electricity generation than does PG&E)
- your PG&E bill being confusing (I've interacted with smart people who couldn't figure out how much they were paying per kWh on average)
In 2020, someone in my neighbourhood put in a request (via the official process) for traffic calming on a nearby road where cars drive dangerously fast, and often fail to stop at a marked pedestrian crossing.
In December 2024, I had a near miss on that crosswalk and contacted the city. I have followed up with them every 3-4 weeks since then.
The last I heard, they might have a public hearing about a potential road hump, in summer 2026.
It's hard to believe the city government is capable of running an electric company.
(I'm no fan of PG&E BTW. Here in SF I've paid more per kWh and had more power outages per unit time, than anywhere else I've lived.)

by winocm

4 subcomments

On the note of PG&E, my electric bill averages to about $750 despite only running an air conditioner, several device chargers, a router, some lights and a fridge...
Thanks PG&E.

by quaddoggy

0 subcomment

Yes, because the city has proven to be so capable of solving the most basic civic issues it is now time the board of supervisors moves on to more advanced challenges.

by hunterpayne

0 subcomment

Please remember that the lines from HH to SF are the same ones that caused wildfires in CA over the last 10 years. So if SF owns the line, they own that liability too. And a single fire's cost is about 3x the yearly budget of SF.

0 subcomment

by jawiggins

0 subcomment

A few months ago I attended an event where a few members of the Board of Supervisors were attending. One person identified themselves as working in this field and pointed out that the current cost plus model incentivizes the company to do all kinds of upgrades that aren't really needed. The BoS member said something like, "Look, we need to just bite the bullet on this one, we're going to overpay, but we are already legally permitted to buy it and doing so will save us a ton of money in the long run because of stuff like that".
I have no personal knowledge, but thought I'd share this experience I had with the ongoing debate.

by simpsond

1 subcomments

PG&E is a profitable, publicly traded company... that issues a dividend. They tried to file for bankruptcy after the paradise fire, but they were too big to fail, so they issued new shares with gov protection. CA created a new insurance backstop for them as well. Corporations should not have government assisted (regulated) monopolies with socialized backstops. Yeah, CPUC is supposed to help, but decision makers probably have exposure. It is the same with Sempra and SDG&E and SCE. SMUD seems like a better organization, but what do I know.

by geor9e

0 subcomment

SF's insane electricity prices are the sole reason I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid instead of a Tesla Model 3. They both cost 12 cents per mile here, so it was just the mild hassle of charging that tipped it out of favor. If I lived somewhere with sane electricity prices like Seattle I totally would have switched.

by throwaway2037

2 subcomments

This part bothers me:
```
    > Dabit’s energy problems reached a new level in December when a PG&E substation fire caused a three-day power outage for the neighborhood. In addition to losing business, Dabit lost $10,000 to $15,000 worth of ingredients.
```
(1) Why didn't the owner have insurance for food spoilage? Since it is rare event, it is probably very cheap. The old saying: "Buy insurance for (emergency) expenses that you cannot afford." This seems like a text book case.
(2) Why didn't the owner immediately run to a hardware store to buy a portable (diesel?) generator to save as much food as possible? At least run one fridge and pack the most expensive ingredients into that one fridge.
Overall: My sympathy is low for the owner's situation.
If the city buys (or runs) its own (traditional) electricity utility, they will be assuming all of the wildfire risk. That is the primary cause of rises electricity rates by PG&E in the last ten years. However, if SF wants to create some power generation in the form of solar panels and batteries or wind, then sign power trade agreements with PG&E, I think that could be tenable/workable. If they spent 100M USD per year building truly reliable, green power generation, then 10 years later would look much better.

by adxl

0 subcomment

Great idea. I am sure MORE government intervention will make this so much better. If I lived in San Francisco still I’d be getting a generator.

by JumpCrisscross

1 subcomments

PG&E is a failure. It’s wild prioritizing its reform and replacement isn’t seen as the existential threat to California Democrats’ national ambitions that it rightfully is.
Distribution shouldn’t be this expensive nor cause this many fires. If the cost of distributing power to remote, fire-prone communities isn’t politically feasible to push to them directly, the cities should be put on a separate distribution system to isolate the cost inflation.
Silicon Valley buys PG&E power and handles distribution itself. It has some of the only reasonable power rates in California [1].
[1] https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/residents/rates-and-fees

by Ancalagon

0 subcomment

sdg&e next please

by jmyeet

0 subcomment

In 1968, Garrett Hardin wrote The Tragedy of the Commons [1]. This was used as the justification for mass privatization of many government bodies (including utilities) in the 1980s and 1990s. PG&E was always private but it suffers from the same issues as many other privatized utilities.
Utilities are a perfect example of a wealth transfer from the government to the wealthy, justified by "efficiency". Losses are socialized, profits are privatized, just like in any public-private "partnership". Utilities are worse because their profits are usually guaranteed.
This paper was proven to be empirically incorrect by Elinor Ostrom for which she won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Economics.
[1]: https://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles_pdf/tragedy_of...

by cyanydeez

0 subcomment

rising costs or inept management.

by pengaru

0 subcomment

AIUI This relationship between PG&E and SF/CPUC has a corrupt history dating back to the 90s with Willie Brown and later even Kamala Harris.

It's a part of why Republicans actually have some grounds for calling Harris corrupt - Willie Brown's office when mayor of SF was notorious for being a pay-to-play situation, she worked there (and even dated him).

  > Or, as Supervisor Aaron Peskin described it, “mind-boggling.” He said
  > the “city family” that grew up under Mayor Willie Brown, continued
  > working under Mayor Gavin Newsom, flourished under Mayor Ed Lee and
  > stayed on under Breed “were all doing favors for one another and
  > living in their own little bubble.”
  >
  > “They all convinced each other that they were like a family, and
  > family can give gifts to their children,” Peskin said, noting those
  > same family members took the city’s required annual ethics training
  > like everybody else and must have known what they were doing was
  > wrong.
  >
  > “They just got too cozy over too much time, and they lost their way,”
  > Peskin said. “Now I have to look at everybody going, ‘Are you a
  > crook?’ It’s not the way I want to see the world.”

from: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/S-...

It's trivial to find articles about the conflicts of interests between Brown and PG&E, I think even to this day he still represents their interests.

by FrankWilhoit

7 subcomments

CPUC exists. CAISO exists. The consumer experience is still bad. What this means is that there is not enough generation. This is not a matter of whether PG&E is "privately" or "publicly" owned, because nearly all large utilities are already a weird mixture of both. Public ownership might have different incentives, but not sufficiently different to allow rates to be lowered substantially (unless it were a case of overt and massive subsidies, which would require state legislation and possibly rewriting the charters of CPUC and CAISO). The only way to lower rates is to add cheaper generation; and the way to make generation cheapest, and to bring it on line quickest, is to locate it near demand.