3 ms·
> What do we have to lose? More lives, more money, more vegetation, more houses, more resources. If you're going to replace something, it's usually a good ide
by OnlineGladiator 7y ago
> What do we have to lose?
More lives, more money, more vegetation, more houses, more resources.
If you're going to replace something, it's usually a good idea to have some reason to believe what you're replacing it with will be better.
I'm not advocating for PG&E, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. But currently I don't see any obvious solution to the situation.
- kevingadd 7y agoRight, but you're automatically assuming it will be worse. We have many examples of well-operated state-owned power companies. It's an obvious thing to try since it's already worked elsewhere. Other incentive methods have not forced PG&E to fix their behavior.
- malandrew 7y ago> We have many examples of well-operated state-owned power companies. Are any of those examples in California?
- kevingadd 7y agoYes. For one example, a poster in another thread talked about how much they love their local municipal power company. You can see a partial list of public-owned utility companies in CA here: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities.html https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities...
- jonas21 7y agoI don't think OnlineGladiator is assuming it will be worse. You asked, "what do we have to lose?", and they're answering the question by pointing out that we still have a lot to lose.