I don’t understand much about transmission lines as an industry, but I really have never understood why California allows what seems like essentially a duopoly to manage its electrical grid, especially around its major population centers like LA and SF. The rates aren’t low, they’re routinely linked to natural disasters, and they’re slow to respond to customer complaints.<p>It seems as absurd to me as if one single company were to own all of a city’s water pipe infrastructure. Maybe that’s actually common too, I just don’t understand why. If it’s simply because municipalities sold them off long ago for short-term windfalls, my next question is why we as a state allow that, in the same sense that we don’t allow selling state parks without major hullabaloo.<p>Granted, I’m covered by LADWP, the nation’s largest municipal water and power utility that even predates this form of the city’s government itself, and I’ve really only had outstanding service with them (I noticed a small leak with a water main forming a minor puddle on a side street and within an hour someone was out there fixing it), so I guess I am wondering what the case for privatized utilities even is.<p>Could someone who knows better than I please explain why the state or local municipalities don’t/can’t manage their grid?
This article is about the Eaton fire. Cliff Mass, a Professor of atmospheric science at the university of Washington, stated about a month ago that the Palisades fire was caused by a power transmission line (<a href="https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2025/01/where-and-how-did-palisades-fire-start.html" rel="nofollow">https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2025/01/where-and-how-did-pal...</a>).<p>It’ll be really infuriating if it turns out all the biggest California fires were caused by utility issues.