Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Millenniauld t1_j0io2uf wrote

Why would they need to hire lawyers? The do the thing. Unless the government making the regulation investigates to figure out if they're doing it "right" AND they're doing it wrong, they don't need the legal process. Also utility companies are HUGE, I assure you they already have an in-house legal team for anything they might need, including compliance disputes.


Kharnsjockstrap t1_j0ividz wrote

So no the government doesn’t just tell someone to do a thing when it comes to most regulation.

There is usually a compliance process which requires frequent disclosures as well as audits, an entire lobbying process before hand because without some industry input the government tends to actually do some pretty stupid shit and periodic feedback periods as well. All of this requires man hours for some pretty intelligent and well paid specialists and it doesn’t materialize out of thin air like in some kind of a time paradox. If they’re working on compliance disclosures, lobbying and audit compliance and fixes then they aren’t doing other shit for the company they are still expected to do so the cost is there regardless if they’re on salary or retainer anyway.

So I’ll pose the question again. Why add all this extra cost for trees when the company literally already does it?


Millenniauld t1_j0ix21i wrote

To answer your question directly: Places in the Midwest where the companies DON'T already do it need the regulation in place so that they START. Because red states cut cost and get away with it the way they don't in blue states. Seriously, this isn't rocket science here.

You seem to think these regulations cannot possibly be followed, and you were given examples of how it isn't unreasonable because it is already done in some areas. Then you wanted to say "why do the extra if it is already done," and the answer is that it isn't done everywhere.

New laws to make utilities in areas that DON'T already do it comply with what other places have shown is possible BY doing it already IS a way to reduce treefall damage to powerlines and reduce deaths.

If that isn't clear enough for you, then I can't help you, because you either don't want to understand out of fear or shame of looking bad for being wrong, or because you're deliberately stirring the pot. Either way, I treated you with respect and I tried.

This will be my last response, but I do hope you have a good holiday.


Kharnsjockstrap t1_j0j3mzr wrote

So the original conversation was about regulation regarding lines and distance to trees. My post is about regulation not being the solution to everything and pitfalls that can be encountered when assuming it is.

There is no need to be hostile. We agree that regulation in some areas is worthwhile just not to stop damage from falling trees.

Companies will already try to limit damage to lines because that’s a bill they’re going to foot. A useful regulation could be something that ensures they can’t pass the cost of damaged lines onto consumers so they would be more incentivized to clear trees but they are already doing this and it’s usually severe winds that blow shit into the lines and not the lines being built directly under trees anyway. Which may not really be a problem regulation can fix especially not the government creating an arbitrary distance between line and tree lmao.