ok, so it's the transmission lines that they're privatizing, not the generation or the board. i'm not convinced that will change rates. i'm more concerned about the logistics of operating the thing.

let's say a tree falls on a line on your property. if it's government owned, the government fixes it with taxes. if it's privately owned, does the company fix it? do they send you a bill?

this just isn't the kind of thing that really makes a lot of sense to separate from public ownership, because it's so massively collectivist by nature. but, wait - does it need to be? see, there's a caveat, here. is it even a smart buy for investors?

if we're moving into a future where people are powering their homes with solar panels, and there's a private entity in charge of the grid, what are the chances that people are going to connect to that grid? might it even act as an incentive for people to move more quickly towards energy self-reliance? and, if you starve the system of funds, will it be able to deliver electricity to those who can't afford to make the switch at prices they can afford?

there's deeper issues here than rates.

this has been a relatively progressive government from the start, but this is really not thought through well. in the end, it's going to cost them huge sums in lost revenue and could quite possibly even break the grid itself. i don't see any way around it: if they sell this, we're going to have to eventually buy it back. and, no doubt at a huge loss.

i mean, imagine selling the entire road system as a monopoly on the stock market. it's insane.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wynne-firm-on-hydro-one-plans-despite-strong-public-opposition/article26363290/