TIL, PG&E covers 70% of the state’s vegetated territory. Just a landmass with massively higher fire risk than the other utilities.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @kenyaw and
surely there's a more optimal situation than prop up a monopoly. what would you propose? a statewide public utility? (which would be awesome)
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @uhshanti @kimmaicutler and
also worth noting that as long as there's a regional power monopoly they can continue to mess with local CCA programs like they are with CleanPowerSF.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
All options on table. Just worry about the ramifications of breaking off the most valuable (though also decaying) part of the infrastructure from the rest of NorCal.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
SF would have had an MUD decades ago if PG&E hadn't consistently worked to kill it. It's past time. The state should form an agency to cover the rural areas
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl @uhshanti and
Sure if the state mandates that the MUD cross subsidize rural electrification.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
...or not. Let the state take that on through a crazy funding method that will no doubt blow your mind: progressive taxation
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl @uhshanti and
Climate change is a game that’s a different level. There are 125,000 miles of power lines in the PG&E system. It is $3M a mile to underground lines, $4-5M in urban areas. It is $5-6K per tree to take out a mature tree in an urban area, more in a rural area bc of access.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
And the idea that you have to entirely fund that through rate paying is a fiction that serves an argument against SF having it's own power system, but has very little other relevance imo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl @kimmaicutler and
As is the idea that the current contingent geographic boundaries of the pg&e system must be replicated in total, and limit both our imagination of possible systems and how they're funded. Artificial, unproductive constraints
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I’m not saying it has to be the same boundaried system, I’m just saying SF breaking off and forming its own system may not actually be progressive from a regional or state point of view.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
But nothing you've said shows that it isn't, without imposing a bunch of constaints on what the other outcomes are
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl @kimmaicutler and
And you're defining progressivism not by either "vs. the current monopoly," nor even by income, but by geography
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 21 more replies
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.