4 ms·
Surely at this point the state has emergency powers to nationalise PG&E and seize control altogether. Why hasn’t that happened yet?
by noodlesUK 7y ago
Surely at this point the state has emergency powers to nationalise PG&E and seize control altogether. Why hasn’t that happened yet?
- onetimemanytime 7y ago....and do what? Pay the bills for all the damage and keep starting new fires? No easy answer, taxes will have to be raised by a lot
- mschuster91 7y ago> No easy answer, taxes will have to be raised by a lot The alternative to raising taxes is to cut bullshit government spending and tax breaks for mega corporations, or enforcing taxes against the rich.
- delfinom 7y agoThe proper thing is the state gives towns emergency powers to start building fire breaks state wide as they should have been all these years. Any town refusing to build fire breaks because "mah property values" or "eyesore" should have their town charter dissolved.
- colechristensen 7y agoPG&E needs to be found liable and the bankruptcy judge needs to wipe out shareholders and break up the infrastructure assets and give them to local municipalities and the state. Shareholders need to face consequences sometimes, because they, the owners, are ultimately responsible, not rate-payers.
- TheHypnotist 7y agoThat sounds like a disastrous solution.
- Symmetry 7y agoHow would that help? Both the state and utilities are strictly liable for fires they cause in California and I don't see the state as being any more willing to assume that liability go bankrupt than PG&E is. It's already the state that decides how much gets spent on maintenance and the relevant regulatory agency hasn't been willing to let PG&E raise its rates. I guess if its nationalized they could raise taxes instead of raising electricity rates but that sounds equally politically infeasible.