3 ms·

Perhaps you read my comment as a defense of PG&E. I carry no water for them! I'm a Californian and I hope only for reliable affordable power, and climate change

Perhaps you read my comment as a defense of PG&E. I carry no water for them! I'm a Californian and I hope only for reliable affordable power, and climate change leadership. > Maybe they could use some of that to a) not burn down california and b) provide their customers with reliable power. Unfortunately they cannot because they are literally bankrupt. > PG&E needs to be dissolved Dissolving PG&E does not magically cut back vegetation or modernize the grid. That's the whipping boy: it's like blaming Exxon for climate change. It directs the energy of our anger to impotent punishment for past misdeeds, without solving today's problems. CA's electrical grid has maintenance debt and underinsured fire risk. I think you're saying that my utility bill is more than enough to cover that - if so, that's great news! I'd love to be convinced that Calfornia can have reliable safe power for no more than I'm paying now. But from what I've read, PG&E has a backlog of work and liability risk, plus limited ability to raise rates. So either our bills or taxes go up. And when then do, hopefully it also provides for the grid modernization necessary for climate change. (And wringing out the PG&E rent seekers would be fine by me too.)

sitkack 7y ago
With the net incoming directly from their financials, how were they prevented from clearing lines of fire hazards? They are bankrupt NOW because they failed to act with the resources at hand. Did they argue for rate increases to make the lines safe while at the same time failing to use that net income to clear the lines of hazards? There is this false dichotomy woven in your arguments equating rate increases with safety measures. Did I say that there is magic in a PG&E dissolution? If the organizational structure of PG&E can't use the resources it has (people, money, influence) to operate the grid safely, someone else needs to take over. When someone is systematically lousy at their job, they get fired. Your rhetoric is riddled with logical fallacies, you aren't making analogies that explain your reasoning. You are making straw men and putting words in my mouth.

sitkack 7y ago

With the net incoming directly from their financials, how were they prevented from clearing lines of fire hazards? They are bankrupt NOW because they failed to act with the resources at hand. Did they argue for rate increases to make the lines safe while at the same time failing to use that net income to clear the lines of hazards? There is this false dichotomy woven in your arguments equating rate increases with safety measures. Did I say that there is magic in a PG&E dissolution? If the organizational structure of PG&E can't use the resources it has (people, money, influence) to operate the grid safely, someone else needs to take over. When someone is systematically lousy at their job, they get fired. Your rhetoric is riddled with logical fallacies, you aren't making analogies that explain your reasoning. You are making straw men and putting words in my mouth.