If you’re looking for the #nopgebailout public comment, you can find it in the auditorium at 505 Van Ness
-
-
That’s why we can’t let up on the demand to make public utilities a priority for California. PG&E has a documented history of preventing community choice power in the state
-
they're currently trying (and succeeding, thanks to CPUC) in charging CleanPowerSF for the "lost revenue" because our CCA is currently *cheaper* than their power.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
i'm very confused about the trade-off between "california issues bonds to pay for PG&E's costs for fire liability" and "california issues bonds to pay for the cost for fire liability it's assumed from PG&E"
-
i'm also confused about the relative costs of credit in an environment where 1) california's credit rating is excellent, & 2) pg&e's credit is terrible. the state could service the liability more cheaply than pg&e, and acquisition of pg&e's assets in bankruptcy would be cheaper
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
PG&E doesn't have the money anyway, and since it's now politically toxic for the leg to try to close the bailout loophole, they aren't going to get it. One way or another, California is on the hook for the fire. I don't really see any benefit to propping up PG&E in the process.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree with others chiming in here that California is on the hook regardless. I also think a key point is that until we move towards public power we aren’t taking steps to prevent the problem from repeating itself.
-
Right now PG&E is making decisions based on what earns shareholders money. This has led to some huge compromises on safety in the past decade. It’s paramount that in the future a public utility can make decisions prioritizing public safety and not profit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
