Newfie wrote:The cost of leaks may Or may not be inconsequential. In places like arid Arizona water is a scarce resource, some places they have to produce it from desalinization plants. In the SW USA people fight over water rights.
In Philadelphia they had pretty good access to water so the cost does not show on the production side. Although it ain’t cheap either. The cost comes in the damage to streets and buildings, etc.
Yet this misses my greater point, that our incompetence is catching up with us in demonstrable ways, the utilities are failing.
It’s rather silly to ban new construction gas pipe lines when there is no mandate to fix the existing lines. We can blame the electric company for starting fires, but we have not required them to adequately maintain their system. Look at the Detroit water fiasco.
IMHO this demonstrates a generalized segregation of our governance. Or maybe it was always this bad and we just accept it?
But the utilities are "failing" because the electorate doesn't want to PAY for the utilities to be properly maintained, as clearly, with all the problems that crop up over time, that would be expensive. Also, as PG&E has shown, you have to oversee and enforce the utilities actually making the improvements they do receive revenue for (if regulations allow somewhat higher rates to be charged, like in CA).
Bad choices don't imply doom. But given human behavior, they DO imply that the consequences won't be dealt with UNTIL they are perceived as bad enough -- and then of course, the bill might be much, much higher to clean up the ensuing mess.
To me, this is just an example of humans screwing up overall re planning. Same as it ever was. Where systems are old, like the water system, small problems becoming larger problems have had a LOT of time to fester, and I keep thinking THAT chicken will show up to roost, but thus far it's mainly more and more patch jobs.
If there were severe consequences for misspending maintenance money (e.g. strong DISincentives) for the utilities, as a rate payer, I'd be all for much higher maintenance costs on my utilities, IF various things would be done properly, such as:
(For the US, as I can't speak to utilities outside the US):
1). Key electrical parts were stored safely, underground, in Faraday cages, safe and ready to go if certain disasters were to occur with the grid, such as "the big one" re a solar storm (i.e. CME event).
2). Over time, the electrical system were moved underground to the extent practical, to minimize line damage from storms. Oh, and sections were maintained and renewed as needed to maintain reliability.
3). The aging, decrepit water and sewer system were replaced and modernized over time, as much of the system is now falling apart.
4). The natural gas storage and distribution system is maintained well enough that the random explosions that occur and destroy buildings, neighborhoods, etc. were dramatically reduced, and basically eliminated re the pipes just being too damn old.
...
But the thing is, unlike most voters, I highly VALUE safe and reliable electric power, water, and natural gas service, and I'm willing to PAY for it as long as my money is being used wisely and honestly to maintain and improve the system, vs. lining various folks' pockets who can be bribed, who will steal, etc.
I think the problem is huge, and I think there's good reason for the distrust from voters.
Now, how do you fix that huge trust gap? (For me, the PG&E fiasco in a heavily regulated state doesn't exactly inspire my trust, for a blatant example).
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pacific-ga ... port-says/