this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
304 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2136 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Almost three years since the deadly Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has ruled that big power companies cannot be held liable for failure to provide electricity during the crisis. The reason is Texas’ deregulated energy market.

The decision seems likely to protect the companies from lawsuits filed against them after the blackout. It leaves the families of those who died unsure where next to seek justice.

...

This week, Chief Justice Terry Adams issued the unanimous opinion of that panel that “Texas does not currently recognize a legal duty owed by wholesale power generators to retail customers to provide continuous electricity to the electric grid, and ultimately to the retail customers.”

The opinion states that big power generators “are now statutorily precluded by the legislature from having any direct relationship with retail customers of electricity.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Ah yes more middlemen with do nothing jobs ment to reduce corporate liability. The American dream.

[–] baldingpudenda 22 points 11 months ago

Dont disparage what they do. They also add to the price so they can profit. Clearly, added value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

that and how many of their customers can afford (or have the spare time) for a contract lawyer?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

It's a separation between power generation and power delivery. We have the same thing in New York. Someone has to own the actual delivery infrastructure, which in NYC is generally this company called ConEdison. They'll also provide the generate power for you, but you have the right to switch to other providers. For instance, I could switch to a provider that generated all power from renewable sources, though it is naturally more expensive.

[–] FlyingSquid 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe it works that way in NYC, but here in Indiana, I get one option for a power company. Power, gas, water, sewer, trash collection, all single option. And no, that single option is not a government one because I live outside city limits. Until they laid fiber in this neighborhood last year, I only had one option for internet too.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

I won't pretend to know the regulations in Indiana, but it's also entirely possible that startup costs or market conditions there don't really facilitate additional competitors. Utilities tend to become way less efficient as you get less dense, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't really get much competition even if there aren't strong regulatory barriers. The market being open doesn't necessarily mean that it's profitable.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Someone has to own the actual delivery infrastructure,

Do they, though? I hear there's this neat thing called "public ownership" that works wonders for basic necessities like utilities. And that way you don't have someone scheming to profit off the things you need to stay alive.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

During the Great privatization scam we are promised that the free market would somehow be magically more efficient but it turns out it was a just so they could show profit Hearing in the middle of stuff that had previously been free of it. Worst service and higher prices were universally the result because those profits have to come from somewhere and that'somewhere is you

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

There are lots of examples of private companies working well as regulated monopolies. The key word is "regulated", though.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

I mean, that isn't incompatible with this system at all. Government ownership of the delivery system, which I'd fully agree is a good thing and one of the places where state ownership naturally fits, is still ownership.

The government generally isn't in the energy production business, so either they lock you into a monopoly with an energy producer, or you get to choose one. Either way, it's the same general system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

We had a Internet Wholesaler in our previous residence who wanted to do the retail side as well. They had the monopoly on the estate we were in, so the ACCC forced them to break up.

With multiple retailers, we suddenly had much better customer assistance, but prices stayed the same.