I have mixed feelings about this. SF would take the most lucrative part of the Northern California grid, leaving lots of low-income Californians like the ones who lost their homes in the #CampFire behind.https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1128022060762984448 …
-
-
Most of our societal problems stem from the rich opting out of the system.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It would be good if the high cost of servicing power for low density habitation & fire prone areas was exposed to rate payers. Do we do this at all right now?
-
We need a T Boone Pickens and/or
@Tesla solution. We should not have transmission lines up and down the state. Power should be generated and stored locally/regionally. This is CALIFORNIA and we’re still looking at this like West Virginia.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
SF gov’t will likely acquire its own power grid (not a bad thing for us, look at SD). The state of CA might step in, but we do not have an ‘all for one, one for all’ ethos in this state. System isn’t set up for that, tho I worry about the Hayforks and Modestos of CA (a bit) too.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
SF cross subsidizing reduces the economic incentive to move out of those areas no?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is part of why it's so important that we need to increase opportunities for people to live in the relatively urbanized parts of the state (especially the portions with low fire risk). We shouldn't be providing another subsidy for low density sprawl in risky areas.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.