Iiiiiiit’s happening! Let your district supervisor know you want a public utility in San Francisco! We can’t let another for-profit utility company raise our rates and put us in danger again. #powerforthepeoplehttps://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-bankruptcy-leads-San-Francisco-to-reconsider-13536619.php …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @buttpraxis
Kim-Mai Cutler Retweeted J.D. Morris
From a regional or state perspective, SF leaving and forming its own utility is not a progressive outcome. It leaves the poorest Californians in the most vulnerable parts of the state to fend for themselves.https://twitter.com/thejdmorris/status/1085595511770378240?s=21 …
Kim-Mai Cutler added,
J.D. MorrisVerified account @thejdmorrisSan Francisco leaders are thinking about stepping up the city's role as a power provider in light of PG&E's bankruptcy plan. But@MichaelWWara asks: If SF exits the utility, what's the impact on those it leaves behind? https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-bankruptcy-leads-San-Francisco-to-reconsider-13536619.php?utm_campaign=twitter-premium&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social … w/@DominicFracassa pic.twitter.com/xaH5iLnxEE2 replies 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @buttpraxis
Why not a regional Nor Cal Public Power agency? It could be a merger of
@SMUDUpdates and@sfpuc, but a better model could be a state owned non-profit holding corporation for PG&E assets that could contract with local incumbents (SF, SMUD, Alameda, etc) & supply the rest of NorCal1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kenyaw @buttpraxis and
Better, but still similar issues. Where are we leaving Butte, Mendocino, Sonoma, etc counties?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @kenyaw and
TIL, PG&E covers 70% of the state’s vegetated territory. Just a landmass with massively higher fire risk than the other utilities.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
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
This seems like a reasonable way to deal with the unequal fire risk - the same way we send water from the north to the population centers in the south.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Also, fire damage attributable to wildfires is over $30 billion in the last 2 years which would seem to make a 30-year bond issue to underground power lines just plain good sense.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
my guess on what would happen if CA got public control over utilities, is that the legislature would write the state govt out of wildfire liabilities on equipment failures.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @safrazie and
our legislature couldn’t pass a just-cause eviction ordinance because the CAA told them it would freeze housing construction. they’re quite capitalist
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
this is a different dynamic. CA state leg can't pass stronger tenant protections bc it's too captured by certain parts of the real estate industry. But if CA govt taxpayers were on the hook for wildfire liability, they would probably just change the rules to prevent crowd out
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 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.