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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @upwithppl @uhshanti and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
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 -
Replying to @upwithppl @kimmaicutler and
but if you want to go all david harvey and talk about geographies of inequality, go off
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl @kimmaicutler and
My point is: you're talking about making rich *regions* pay for poorer regions. I want rich *people,* statwide (or wherever) to pay for poor *people.* That's progressive
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @upwithppl @uhshanti and
Undergrounding every PG&E power line in CA is at least $375B, which you’d need five Mark Zuckerbergs for. And that number is still less than the CA’s unfunded pension liability.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
Let me introduce you to the concept of bonding against future tax revenues
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Let me introduce you to California’s high revenue volatility, which negatively impacts its bond ratings.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @uhshanti and
It's rating is triple a minus, no?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @upwithppl @kimmaicutler and
The revenue volatility is real talk. Things were brutal for local and state government programs during the ‘08 recession. Transpo / Infrastructure was bad, but social programs & rural areas were hard hit.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes - 14 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.