The funeral of Navalny; Asimov's laws of robotics on Mystery Hype AI Theater 3000; Very Briefly Noted; & Fear of a Black Pope!; Quick Takes on Acemoglu & Johnson's "Power & Progress"; Affirmative...
Why don't utilities like PG&E and Hawaiian have hazard insurance? Regulators may not have believed the utilities implicit charges for self-insurance, but they would have to have accepted insurer's premiums. Now would insurers have been setting precia based on forard-looking models? Maybe not, but at least that would be their problem, not the utilities'.
Noting for the record that after the changes to the Public Utilities Act starting in 1994 there are very few electric utilities left in the US, I think you may be underestimating the scale of PG&E and its peers such as Duke Power. Similar to the Class 1 railroads PG&E's market cap may not equal that of the larger Wall Street financial firms but the replacement value of its property plant & equipment would be colossal if it could even be measured. A catastrophic loss by such an entity is not an insurable event by an insurance consortium.
Doesn't that imply that their capital expenditure on replcement should be huge, even if they depreciate over long periods and, as we have seen, fail to replace aged equipment. It reminds me of the accounting tricks of some UK firms that would have ridiculously long depreciation lengths for capital equipment in order to juice earnings to keep the stock price high.
Depreciation is accounting magic. US Rubber used to lose money every year but still paid a dividend thanks to the magic of depreciation. The explainer article pointed out that depreciation is a form of debt. The difference is that bond holders can sue you, but, as the article noted, an aging brick can't take you to court.
I recently rewatched The Death of Stalin. A major turning point involves controlling who can come to his funeral. In still seems to be a big deal in some places.
Democrats do not need to crave the approval of environmental activists; they need to crave the approval of the marginal voter in the swing state/district.
[It's a separate issue why environmental activists are not focused like a laser on minimum cost measures for reducing CO2, so that their approval would be worth craving.]
Given that most CO2 is emitted by industry, why should environmental activists be focused on minimum cost measures for CO2 reduction. What they can do is influence industry, individuals, and policy makers to find ways to push reduced CO2 emissions. The easiest is by burning less (e.g. drive less, reduce heating and cooling), Industry needs to be more efficient, so carbon taxes should be enacted to reward efficiency. Policies to support renewables vs fossil fuels installation and use. Minimum cost approaches need to be decentralized for each actor, not from the top down.
I agree. A tax on net emissions (collected as an excise on the first sale of a carbon containing fuel in proportion to the carbon content) maximally decentralizes the combust/do not combust decision. It is for that reason the least cost solution.
Navalny funeral: This reminds me of a song our choir sings at Easter:
"They have been saying
"No one will remember"
"They have been saying"
"Power rules the world"
....
Roll away the Stone!
Why don't utilities like PG&E and Hawaiian have hazard insurance? Regulators may not have believed the utilities implicit charges for self-insurance, but they would have to have accepted insurer's premiums. Now would insurers have been setting precia based on forard-looking models? Maybe not, but at least that would be their problem, not the utilities'.
Noting for the record that after the changes to the Public Utilities Act starting in 1994 there are very few electric utilities left in the US, I think you may be underestimating the scale of PG&E and its peers such as Duke Power. Similar to the Class 1 railroads PG&E's market cap may not equal that of the larger Wall Street financial firms but the replacement value of its property plant & equipment would be colossal if it could even be measured. A catastrophic loss by such an entity is not an insurable event by an insurance consortium.
Doesn't that imply that their capital expenditure on replcement should be huge, even if they depreciate over long periods and, as we have seen, fail to replace aged equipment. It reminds me of the accounting tricks of some UK firms that would have ridiculously long depreciation lengths for capital equipment in order to juice earnings to keep the stock price high.
Depreciation is accounting magic. US Rubber used to lose money every year but still paid a dividend thanks to the magic of depreciation. The explainer article pointed out that depreciation is a form of debt. The difference is that bond holders can sue you, but, as the article noted, an aging brick can't take you to court.
I was referring to the liability for loss that the utility might cause.
I recently rewatched The Death of Stalin. A major turning point involves controlling who can come to his funeral. In still seems to be a big deal in some places.
Democrats do not need to crave the approval of environmental activists; they need to crave the approval of the marginal voter in the swing state/district.
[It's a separate issue why environmental activists are not focused like a laser on minimum cost measures for reducing CO2, so that their approval would be worth craving.]
Given that most CO2 is emitted by industry, why should environmental activists be focused on minimum cost measures for CO2 reduction. What they can do is influence industry, individuals, and policy makers to find ways to push reduced CO2 emissions. The easiest is by burning less (e.g. drive less, reduce heating and cooling), Industry needs to be more efficient, so carbon taxes should be enacted to reward efficiency. Policies to support renewables vs fossil fuels installation and use. Minimum cost approaches need to be decentralized for each actor, not from the top down.
I agree. A tax on net emissions (collected as an excise on the first sale of a carbon containing fuel in proportion to the carbon content) maximally decentralizes the combust/do not combust decision. It is for that reason the least cost solution.