This all sounds very optimistic. The reality is that there isn't a certain way for the current electrical power authority to obtain this kind of capital and/or assets to execute this kind of plan.
Puerto Rico's government debt was in crisis before the hurricane hit: outstanding bond debt of $70 billion ($12,000 per capita); very high poverty rate; and 10+% unemployment.
Maybe they could try to become a new Hong Kong in the Caribbean Sea. Rule of law, deregulation, free markets even for power production and distribution. Tourism is a small part of their economy, and never a solid, prosperous plan.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. This has worked well in Singapore as well. PR already moving in that direction too: if you claim full-time residency or incorporate there (183 days/yr), US citizens can avoid paying lots of different types of taxes [1]
All shipping to PR has to happen via US companies on ships built in the US crewed with US citizens, increasing the price of any good shipped there (basically everything)
Unsuprisingly, not having to pay taxes only offsets that to a certain point for people with somewhat normal incomes. And having rich people move there is of limited value if you basically waive all or most direct taxes.
Yes, true, the effect is the same. A ship from overseas passes by PR with goods for the island. It harbors there. It continues to the mainland, now it’s in violation of the jones act since it’s transporting goods between US ports. What are the huge cargo freighters going to do? Unload everything at PR? No. They’ll pass and unload at the mainland.
Minor nitpick: they are not technically in violation of the act unless they actually onload cargo in PR, i.e. they could just offload at PR and continue on to mainland. The end result is the same though as merely offloading is not efficient so the ships always go to the mainland instead.
When i visited there last year, and talked to residents, it appears there is a lot of corruption that goes on, which seems to do more harm than good to their economy.
It's not at all accurate, that they have almost no say in their own laws and regulations.
They set the majority of their own tax laws for one example (including sales and income taxes), and don't pay federal income taxes. They do pay into Social Security and Medicare, the benefits of which they can claim back later.
They set the majority of all criminal laws for themselves.
They have their own constitution.
They're free to set all sorts of laws how they see fit, so far as it doesn't contradict, for example, the US Bill of Rights. Their ability to set laws is greater than that of the 50 states, meaning they have a wide field to work with.
It wasn't intended to pose a counter argument. Instead it was meant to show that I found that line of thinking to be so blatently laughable as to not merit a counter argument.
PR won’t be able to finance the majority of repairs, it’s just not realistic. The US Govt, including FEMA, will have to help Americans rebuild. Otherwise, PR will be de facto depopulated by migration to the US and elsewhere.
Isn't is possible to raise money for Infrastructure-specific projects, which would be paid back by with revenues raised from selling power? I don't understand why its not a good investment: all people need power, they need to buy it somewhere right? If they had a clause which said revenues from the customers would be first used to pay back the specific debt... is that possible?
It is a good investment until due to mismanagement they don't make enough revenue to pay up. PREPA is already in default on their bonds so I don't see how they can convince anyone to lend them even more money. The previous bondholders probably have dibs on the income stream already.
It's $17bn over the 10 year projected lifetime of the implementation. So "only" $1.7bn a year (roughly, the projected yearly costs ramp up until 2025, then drop a bit). That's easily do-able through federal assistance funding. Nutrition Assistance For Puerto Rico already gives $1.5bn of federal money every year, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_Assistance_for_Puert...
Given PREPA’s history and turmoil, it’s questionable how efficiently they would use any amount of money. It’s not an argument for a for-profit monopoly, but for well-managed, capital-efficient, accountable service provider that doesn’t extort customers.
Tesla doesn’t have relevant expertise or local knowledge to deploy a complete energy grid suitable for PR. Plus, they would create a profit-centric monopoly that would end up squeezing poor people. Instead, a non-profit or state-run monopoly that is run well, unlike PREPA is a required precondition. PR can’t sustain competitors due to its tiny size, so they need an “Amtrak” for most services.
It would be nice to deploy solar, wind and distributed battery storage along with cleaner power generation, but it doesn’t have to be Tesla. Costa Rica’s generation-side has some good clean energy deployments that might make useful templates.
I don't know where you're from, but the overwhelming majority of the USA gets its power from regulated private companies which have a monopoly on distribution. Your first paragraph makes it seem like you're unaware of this.
They do have over 3 million people. Many of whom are bilingual and reasonably well educated. It also has ports critical for international trade. Please don't dismiss an entire country so flippantly.
It's not a completely unreasonable question since from a complete outsider's perspective (and a consumer facing perspective in particular), Tourism would appear to dominate PR's economy.
Part of 2.5 Billion given out by just one department (Agriculture) specifically designed to modernize electrical systems for “poor white folk” in middle America.
Turns out those people are over represented in Congress who doles out such things whereas PR gets no representation...
We don’t divvy up federal spend proportionally based on paid income taxes.
If we did “poor white” rural citizens/states would be in big trouble as they currently get more money than they should from a purely proportional measure.
Taxpayers in the poorest states pay tax based on their income. Not only do the Puerto Ricans pay no federal income tax, they've spent themselves into penury and would have expected a bailout had there been no hurricane.
I'm perfectly willing to see my tax dollars go to the Puerto Rican grid as soon as they start paying taxes.
They should start paying federal taxes as soon as the federal government allows them to become a state. Until that happens, they’d be getting taxed with no representation.
But they are US Citizens still. And the federal government subsidizes plenty of infrastructure into areas that pay relatively little federal tax, because we as a country care about fellow citizens’ well-being.
>They should start paying federal taxes as soon as the federal government allows them to become a state. Until that happens, they’d be getting taxed with no representation.
Great, then they should get no money from the rest of us.
They have no say in the matter, is the point. Because they aren’t a state, and aren’t allowed to become a state, taxing them would literally be applying one of the core justifications for US rebellion to Puerto Rico. Do we want Puerto Rico to revolt? Then we should either make them a state or not force them to pay federal taxes.
But unless we’re going to give them independence, we still have an obligation to protect and, to some extent, provide for them.
I feel the same way about Missouri. They’ve constantly voted to not modernize their electrical grid to the point an internal commission says its driving away state tax revenue.
They also are a net drain on the treasury. They get more federal dollars out than they put in.
Were those places hit by a hurricane and asked FEMA for assistance?
There is definitely something to be said about economic prosperity in a lot of places, but abandoning 3.41 million US citizens after a hurricane hits doesn't seem very American.
that's not an argument against providing relief. you don't think southern california will be federally subsidized to rebuild after these fires? as all of our infrastructure falls apart, we're going to have to look at spending on it in the same way we did to build it in the first place.
Have you not seen disdain for flyover states(ie Trump country) in the past year? I will find some examples for you. I'd have to guess that you are avoiding any kind of politically charged discussion if you haven't noticed this. Will edit my post.
I also don't understand the context. I agree with your point, but saying that you can't discriminate against citizens according to the Constitution doesn't mean they are guaranteed access to power. I don't think the virtue of being a US citizens obliges someone to give them access to electricity.
In one thread you inadvertently out yourself, saying "despite having an account for more than 8 years", while posting on an account that is 18 months old, that is replying to a comment your parent account made.
And there's a near 1:1 correlation between articles and comment threads where you and googlryas can be found (most often, but certainly not exclusively, on the topic of Trump / Republican / conservative politics, including how both accounts regularly refer to 'T_D', aka /r/the_donald).
Keep reading the history - I openly admit that I am the same account. I have a choice - "edit" respond, or use another account.
I appreciate the e-stalk, but that is really regardless of the point. What does this have to do with constitutional rights and a modern electrical grid?
> I appreciate the e-stalk, but that is really regardless of the point. What does this have to do with constitutional rights and a modern electrical grid?
Good question. In point of fact, the reading of your comment history (or e-stalking) was to see if there were examples of you using services most consider the government obligated to provide or support, without a specific Constitutional right explicitly naming them.
> Keep reading the history - I openly admit that I am the same account.
I don't think that's particularly ingenuous, though. "Keep reading my history and after several pages you may find an admission that they're both my accounts... if you're paying attention... if you even notice something odd in the first place..." when you're actively treating the two accounts as individuals 99% of the time (otherwise, why say "hey, user googlrys said something like that before", rather than "I said something like that before on my other account googlrys"?) and interacting between them in a manner that with very few exceptions doesn't say "we are one".
Again, avoiding the question
Can we just agree that there is no constitutional right to electricity?
Constitutional rights are things the government can't do, not services they must provide. And yes, I do think government has a large role in our life, but it isn't because they are servicing our constitutional rights.
