Archive for February 10th, 2010

h1

Private management of the commons: Parking spots and Chicago snow

February 10, 2010

Michael Giberson

No doubt that since Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize last year for, among other things, her work on decentralized approaches to common pool resource issues, a small legion of social science graduate students are looking for new cases of non-governmental management of common pool resources.

Here is an example supplied by Fred McChesney: on-street parking spaces dug out from the snow in Chicago.

Alex Taborrak notes the Washington Post reports that in Boston the city has codified a similar practice: if you dig yourself a parking spot in the snow, a lawn chair or trash can will render the space yours for up to two days.

Perhaps a comparison to reclaimed-from-the-snow parking space management practices in the Washington, D.C., area would be possible.  Given the amount of snow that has fallen in the capital area, you probably have a few weeks to collect the necessary comparative data.

ADDED: Pittsburgh offers another variant of  law and practice:

“Chairs and barriers of any type holding parking spaces on city streets are considered abandoned property and will be removed and discarded,” Pittsburgh Police spokeswoman Diane Richard told Channel 4 Action News in an e-mail.

See also the discussion by Pitt Law professor Mike Madison. HT for both links to Freakonomics.

So Chicago has an informal practice guided by custom and tolerated by the city; Boston has the practice codified into city ordinance; Pittsburgh has an informal practice which is actively opposed by the city; and Washington DC doesn’t get serious snow often enough to have a well developed custom.  Lots of angles to study.

What about Minneapolis and Milwaukee?  What about Seattle or Denver?  Any more reports?

STILL MORE: Via Market Design, where Al Roth dubs the practice “anti-social,” a Boston Globe story on claiming parking spots before the snow begins to fall, “Claiming a spot before shoveling? That’s not Southie.”

h1

PG&E spending big to protect its monopoly against municipal aggregation

February 10, 2010

Michael Giberson

For a number of years, state law in California has permitted cities or counties to arrange to become the electric power service provider for their areas – an arrangement where they would be responsible for acquiring the electric energy needed for consumers in their areas while the local utility would continue to operate the transmission and distribution.  (Consumer in the affected areas are allowed to opt-out, and stay with the private utility.) Only in the past few years have a few local government taken the “community choice aggregator”  idea seriously, and so only recently have the state’s privately-owned utilities worried much about the prospect of losing customer base.

San Francisco-based PG&E has initiated an effort to change the law so that local governments would need a two-thirds majority favorable vote from citizens in their communities in order to become a community choice aggregator.  Advocates of the local government-centered efforts worry that a two-thirds requirement will be insurmountable.  Details of the story are available at the Mercury News.  The state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office supplies a description.

Hat Tip for the link goes to Tom Fowler, NewsWatch: Energy, but he misleadingly styles the story as “California utilities spending big to block electric competition.”  For one, just a single utility – PG&E – seems to be involved. The state’s other investor-owned utilities appear not to be participating in the effort.  And the effort isn’t so much an attempt to “block electric competition” as it is an attempt by one monopolist to block other potential monopolists from horning in on its action.

Of course there has long been competition between private utilities and municipalities in the electric industry. According to Forrest McDonald’s biography of Samuel Insull, one reason Insull became an advocate of state-regulated private monopoly utilities in the late 1890s was as an effort to avoid municipalization of his companies.  Historically, municipalities were motivated by a hope of lower rates (at least that was usually the story for public consumption).  In the case of at least of few of the local governments exploring becoming an aggregator now, however, the announced motivation is to purchase a larger amount of renewable power, even though it can be more expensive.

As an aside: In parts of Texas with significant amounts of real retail electric competition, consumers can already choose the amount of their power that comes from renewable sources, with multiple companies offering contracts ranging all the way from 0 to 100 percent renewable energy content.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers