4 ms·

They are making politically expedient decisions that move the state towards its clean energy commitments. Yes, there may be some hiccups down the road, but that

They are making politically expedient decisions that move the state towards its clean energy commitments. Yes, there may be some hiccups down the road, but that is the price to pay for putting off the transition for so long. And as one of the faster movers in this space CA will almost undoubtedly move the market in a way that will make it cheaper and easier for everyone else. Look at the "California Solar Initiative" (CSI) for example. It incentivized solar installations across the state, well before small scale installations were economically viable. And across the lifetime of the program, solar prices came down and adoption grew.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
Have you seen BART? The freeways in every major metro of CA? You are defending politics and not engaging the reality of failed infrastructure in the state. Now they are going to lead the country in developing a new paradigm in power infrastructure? The same that has PG&E blowing up neighborhoods because the company got so much tax incentive to continue building they failed to record where they placed capital assets and can't complete maintenance. California isn't putting anything off, they just can't get anything done. Giving tax incentives to get more people to buy e-cars won't fix that problem
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- qqqwerty 4y ago
  Turn off fox news for a bit and try getting your information from reliable, nonpartisan sources. Currently, over 60% of Californias electricity comes from clean sources (hydro, renewables, and nuclear). And we are well on target to hit 100% before our goal of 2045. These are facts. PG&E has nothing to do with this. Most power plants in the state are owned by third party investors, not by the utilities. Perhaps you should read up on CA power markets before commenting.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    You are in a politics bubble. Don't try to couch my comment in your political view. PG&E is an example of how the policies used in CALIFORNIA fail the people of CALIFORNIA. That is relevant. These are facts. If you DIED because of infrastructure failures, maybe you'd feel differently! You know? Because you'd be dead and all...
User23 4y ago
And who benefits from that? Owners of single family detached housing and megalandlords. Maybe there is some positive environmental impact, but really the main motivation is wealth transfer to the politically connected classes.

upsidesinclude 4y ago

Have you seen BART? The freeways in every major metro of CA? You are defending politics and not engaging the reality of failed infrastructure in the state. Now they are going to lead the country in developing a new paradigm in power infrastructure? The same that has PG&E blowing up neighborhoods because the company got so much tax incentive to continue building they failed to record where they placed capital assets and can't complete maintenance. California isn't putting anything off, they just can't get anything done. Giving tax incentives to get more people to buy e-cars won't fix that problem

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
qqqwerty 4y ago
Turn off fox news for a bit and try getting your information from reliable, nonpartisan sources. Currently, over 60% of Californias electricity comes from clean sources (hydro, renewables, and nuclear). And we are well on target to hit 100% before our goal of 2045. These are facts. PG&E has nothing to do with this. Most power plants in the state are owned by third party investors, not by the utilities. Perhaps you should read up on CA power markets before commenting.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  You are in a politics bubble. Don't try to couch my comment in your political view. PG&E is an example of how the policies used in CALIFORNIA fail the people of CALIFORNIA. That is relevant. These are facts. If you DIED because of infrastructure failures, maybe you'd feel differently! You know? Because you'd be dead and all...

User23 4y ago

And who benefits from that? Owners of single family detached housing and megalandlords. Maybe there is some positive environmental impact, but really the main motivation is wealth transfer to the politically connected classes.