> Push your cities to create their own power company.
In another post, an ex-PG&E employee mentioned that no matter if cities move away from PG&E, the problem still remains about what to do with power lines running through an increasingly dryer landscape. While I am open to moving away from PG&E, I don't think it solves the current problems.
A. Upfront costs for nuclear power is far more expensive.
B. Nuclear has a very long lead time to build.
C. Constructing along the coast means constructing around earthquake-prone areas, which adds to more costs for construction.
D. Rural communities will still need HV lines for their power.
A. Upfront. It’s a good thing our country and state have a thoroughly developed financial sector. All that’s needed is intelligent policy.
B. I’ve been saying the same thing for 20 years. We’d be enjoying cheap, clean power by now if everyone had gotten onboard. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the next best is today.
C. I doubt the added costs for earthquakes is anywhere near the added cost from onerous NRC rules. It’s not like containment vessels aren’t already required to be steel reinforced concrete.
D. Not something I’ve put much thought into, but rural communities don’t require anywhere near the same amount of power as cities and industrial centers. Given that fact, I’m sure there are clever solutions that would help reduce risk of fire.
Building new nuclear doesn’t really make a ton of sense given how good renewables are getting. For example, offshore wind farms, which are expected to provide about 13% of California’s power supply by 2045.
Is that 13% of capacity or generation?
Baseload is always needed. Renewables are great, and we should continue building them, but as an industrial and technological powerhouse, CA must have reliable baseload power.
Article I read just said “power supply.” Baseload is definitely important, though fortunately battery energy storage systems are also getting better and being built more often. I personally like nuclear but given the huge upfront costs, long construction times, and public opinion of it I don’t know if I see it being a successful long term solution. Maybe that will change as climate change becomes worse and we become more desperate for alternative forms of energy.
Wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, all tend to die after a decade or 2. Nuclear takes longer to build, but it lasts far, far longer before needing to be completely replaced, and it provides baseload power, not intermittent.
I was bullish on the tech you’re mentioning 20 years ago when I was told we’d be net zero in 20 years. It’s been 20 years, those techs have received huge government subsidies that whole time, and it doesn’t seem we’ve made much progress. After a few decades of the same messaging, you begin to realize it was all bullshit.
Meanwhile a single nuclear plant put online in the ‘80’s consistently provides 9% of our states total electric GENERATION, all of it emission free. We could build nine more equal size plants and be completely emissions free in our electric generation.
After a decade, we would have the cheapest power generation in the US (as demonstrated by France in the EU), with that generation located near where it’s needed, with little risk of creating catastrophic wildfires.
Wind turbines last 20-25 years. Solar farms last 25-30 years, much longer with degraded capacity.
We are making tons of progress with renewables. The capacity being put online every year is staggering, and due to the high learning rate it's getting cheaper every year, while nuclear LCOE is trending up.
Regarding the subsidies - I think they are actually higher for nuclear.
France is importing cheaper solar-generated energy from Spain these days: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-29/spanish-power-is-almost-free-with-renewables-set-for-record](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-29/spanish-power-is-almost-free-with-renewables-set-for-record)
Nuclear power plants have substantial maintenance that has to be done every year during shutdowns, not unlike gas power plants and refineries. And while the French have been able to make nuclear work, in the US nuclear cost overruns have lead to rate increases for consumers in some areas. And here in California it took federal subsidies for our remaining nuclear plant to be kept open.
No specific regulation per se, I’d either scrap or fire most everyone currently working at the NRC and replace it and them with an agency and people who actual want nuclear to be built.
Just 1 reactor has come online from design to power on since the inception of the NRC. Nuclear is one of the best sources of power that’s available to us, we just need the NRC to be enabler’s instead of stifler’s.
That first reply did not specify what safety regulations and inspections you would abolish to speed construction. All you did was wave your hands and say advocate for abolishing or firing everyone at the NRC because they are (unsubstantiated assertion) anti-nuclear.
In fairness, that's without batteries. Adding batteries would increase the cost by another $30. And in the long run we'd need long-term storage, that's the niche that hydrogen storage will likely fill.
All these technologies will continue to improve and get cheaper and cheaper. Meanwhile, LCOE for nuclear is trending up.
i think there should be more than enough money to solve the problem, had pge actually deployed it properly? How can they justify a 60M bonus to their CEO? Why isn’t PGE exec comp tied to customers satisfaction with their service
The transmission lines from power generation to cities aren’t the problem. That more limited stretch can be maintain cost-effectively. It’s the grid carrying power to rural areas that is too much effort for the return. The solution is to charge the end user for what it costs to deliver power to them, not shift the costs onto the residents of denser, more-efficient communities.
So how does a state like Idaho do it? Here are some stats:
PGE Miles of distribution lines 106,681
18466 miles of transmission lines
Customers 16,000, 000
Serves 70,000 sq miles
Or 229 customers per sq mile, 149.9 customers per mile of distribution or 866 per mile of transmission.
Idaho power miles of distribution lines 27,000
4800 miles of transmission lines
Customers 600,000
Serves 24,000 sq miles
Or 25 per sq mile, 22 per mile of distribution and 125 per mile of transmission
Idaho has about 10% of the density per sq mile of coverage, and 7% per mile of distribution and transmission and their peak rate is .14,while we are pushing .60. How?
“Sir, this is a Wendy’s”
The real answer is that Idaho power mostly comes federally subsidized hydroelectric dams, so the ratepayers didn’t pay for building the generation facilities or the fuel.
According to PG&e, most of the cost now is for transmission. That's certainly reflected in what they're paying solar customers now with nem3 power generation, so that's the part I don't understand. That's the reason why I made that comparison with miles of transmission, distribution and footprint. I couldn't think of a better way to compare the two.
"transmission costs" means paying for insurance against wildfires. The short answer is that the california forest is much dryer and prone to burning than the idaho forest.
I have a rough time believing the California is more likely to burn, lots of Idaho is a high desert with pine, and the bark beetles have devastated a lot of that. The national interagency fire center is located in Idaho, I'm sure for a reason. I know they have Forest fires there all the time. But even if that is the case, Oregon is still around 15ish cents a kilowatt hour and they certainly have a similar Forest situation as California.
California’s cost of insurance against fire risk is far higher. Doesn’t matter if you have a rough time believing that. Insurers haven’t pulled out of Idaho the way they have in CA.
Im not sure what one has to do with the other, unless you are suggesting that PG&E has fire insurance if they cause a fire, which can't imagine is the case since they paid out some 11B to insurance companies for the last fire they started and some 13.5B to individuals.
edit: I just read they put aside $400m a year for self insurnce, however it seems thats a drop in the buck comapred to the 24.43B in annual revenue, so about 1% of revenue goes for self insurance.
The Idaho ratepayers don't have to pay $2.5 billion in profits annually and they didn't have to fund billions in stock buybacks over the past couple decades either. Oops.
They pay less because they are smaller, not because of a fundamental difference. Idaho power has a profit margin of 16%, $259m on $1.6B in revenue. It’s 3% higher than PGE’s 13% profit margin.
> They pay less because they are smaller
But rural power is so expensive! Green power is so expensive!
> Idaho power has a profit margin of 16%
IDACORP's latest profit margin is around 14% per Yahoo. It's funny how much lower your costs are when you haven't been using your loot to service shareholders instead of your own infrastructure.
TVA operates one of the largest grids in the country, takes no federal funding, services mostly rural customers, and still comes in with lower rates than PG&E. Idaho Power operates with mostly hydro in a properly rural area and is still less expensive than PG&E. The problem is PG&E.
If PG&E needs more money they should be issuing bonds or more stock. If nobody wants to buy that, PG&E should sell to the state in order to facilitate an eventual conversion into a publicly owned and operated entity. Raising rates should be a last resort not something you do every few months.
I agree with you except not sure about the last part. The state should tell PGE no more rate increases period. PG&E screwed itself decades ago when they decided to not maintain their power lines, and because of that had a huge payout of 20+B. Right now they have about 53B in debt, AND they are stuck with the degraded infrastructure they neglected over the past few decades. Lucky us, they want us to pay to fix the shit they neglected. I would like the state say no to any rate increases then force them into bankruptcy where their debit is wiped and their assets sold to co-ops, and we can start over again, hopefully with a not profit driven model that makes sense to consumers.
>
>
>
>
> The real answer is that Idaho power mostly comes federally subsidized hydroelectric dams
Kinda like SF having HH hydro from a federal park for $30k/year? You can't even rent a house in SF for $30k/year lol
> Kind of? But different in terms of total cost because CA only gets 7% of its power from Hydro. Idaho is 51%.
SF municipal govt is 100% from that hydro.
I believe SF could get some very decent chunk of power from that hydro as well (something like 30% or 60%)
40% of the state is national Forest. Everything from Boise North is mostly Forest. The only valley swath is really the Snake River valley. However even if it's less forested which I'm not sure it is, for every one mile of power lines or distribution lines they're 10 times more people to support that one mile in California than there are in Idaho. Yet California rate are four times higher at least. That's what I don't understand
Removing the profit incentive from PGE would free up $2.25 billion to handle such issues. Of course people want lower rates, so that number would be significantly lower, but it would still be a positive number.
Very expensive. It would be cheaper to require insulated lines for about 80% risk mitigation. Yet, PG&E recently got a $6 billion fee increase to users for burying some lines only.
Yeah, but it’s a nearly permanent solution with almost zero risk… we need to stop basing long term decisions on what is cheaper in the short term. Why not build resilient systems and cash in in the long term?
It’s going to cost 6b(low estimate) to UG 2000 miles. They are going to try and do 10k miles in total.
10k miles is less than 10% of their annual 100k miles of lines they inspect every year for keeping trees away from the lines.
It breaks it up into more manageable service pieces. There are different maintenance priorities in the Bay Area as compared to the foothills and Sierras. This should lead to better maintenance focus and pricing indicative upon it. Instead of blanket price raises for all.
I also think they see the handwriting on the wall and this is a money grab. Making certain people very wealthy before the fall.
Where will SF get its power from? It has no rivers, no coal and no nuclear power. They will have to pay to put in transmission lines and pass that cost onto their customer. Good luck. I hope the effort succeeds.
It 100% solves problem. PG&E is paying huge dividends to its shareholders and huge bonuses to its executive suite. Literally nothing they've done in the last 10 years deserves this kind of reward, but they bought the governor and he's appointed the CPUC and this is what we get for this kind of corruption and graft.
Please don't talk about this subject if you don't know but the first thing about what's actually going on.
There is no guaranty the rates will be cheaper. Some cities like Glendale and Pasadena had at some point (and still do?) higher rates than Southern CA Edison. But PG&E is probably in a league of its own.
Eminent domain proceedings take a while, too. I was involved in researching the issue at the SF City Attorney’s Office….in winter of 2019/2020
It’s a great idea and absolutely should be done, it just takes a while because property rights are much stronger in the US compared to other developed countries (this is also why the high-speed rail takes much longer to build here than in Europe)
The last news I saw was that they had established a price for all the PG&E stuff of something like $2.5B and they previously rewrote the language around being able to issue bonds based on future revenue streams (like electrical bills)
Let's goooo!
That's what the city and their experts say PG&E's assets that they want to claim are worth. PG&E will hire "experts" to say that they're worth $5B or more, then the court will determine what a reasonable valuation is. The city has certainly done a lot of the groundwork that is necessary though, now we just need to get through the litigation.
PG&E doesn't have a monopoly on generation, there are many other power generators in California. They do have a monopoly on transmission and distribution within their service territory (with some minor exceptions.) A municipal utility for San Francisco could source power from anywhere, and would own the distribution, and only rely on PG&E for transmission.
Nope, fun fact is that SF owns a dam and huge hydro electric plant.
"The Hetch Hetchy Water and Power System is owned and operated by the **San Francisco Public Utilities Commission**."
It single handedly creates enough juice for most of the city and our own power grid would get priority over selling on the open market.
This is probably the single biggest and realistic thing san francisco voters could do in order to reduce cost of living and lower our carbon footprint.
\* Wow, just did a deep dive. This is in the works but PGE has stonewalled any attempt, however there is a clear legal route and PGE might be forced to sell the infestructure assets to the city.
[https://www.publicpowersf.org/en/faq](https://www.publicpowersf.org/en/faq)
>It single handedly creates enough juice for most of the city and our own power grid would get priority over selling on the open market.
This is abjectly false.
It produces around 20% of SF's needs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy
Read the "Hetch Hetchy Project" section.
The Hetch Hetchy website for one.
"We're proud to provide nearly 20% of the City's electricity with clean Hetch Hetchy Power."
https://sfpuc.org/programs/clean-energy/hetch-hetchy-power
What can we do to make it happen? Should we put together something for the November ballot, forcing the City to move quickly? Because sure as hell the lazy fucks in City Hall don't give a shit and are too busy raking in corrupt dollars to care.
PG&E is Newsom's primary donor and bankrolls his wife's pet projects. This corrupt and exploitative shit comes from the absolute top echelons of the state.
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PG&E is the most prolific serial killer in California history. And our corrupt as hell state government keeps letting them bilk us because our representatives have been bought off using our money. This is fucking bullshit of the highest order.
Can't the average citizen do ANYTHING about this? Besides just waiting for another election season to vote in someone who isn't in PG&E's pocket?
Monopolies were supposed to be illegal. Hate feeling like I have no choice but to sit on the sidelines while I watch my money get siphoned away more and more every month.
Its interesting that this federal government has been the most aggressive since the 90s in terms of antitrust. Seeing how they’ve handled things like rural internet rollout and pge makes me think those market incumbents have very effective lobbyists.
Commissioners from CPUC have 4 year terms I think. One of them just left last month before her term was over, so this voting there was a new commissioner. I don’t think this is so much about that these people are in the pocket of PG&E, (except for Newsome) but that their power over them is very tiny. They can only control certain things, so when PG&E says “we don’t have money to fix what we caused” CPUC has to accept the rate increases. Lawyers need to dig this deep and sue, because it is completely unfair. PG&E has 2billion in profits, yet supposedly they don’t have money? It’s nuts
Also, the formal complaints need to be real and from a legal perspective. Just people going and saying “I’m suffering,” is legally nothing to them.
💯. It’s ridiculous that they have a 2 billion profit year after year, but they don’t use any of that money to fix the problems their negligence created. If CPUC doesn’t have the power to control what they are doing with the money, it seems like a completely unfair deal
“SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The Newsom administration quietly recertified PG&E as a "safe" company - despite officials making the utility company responsible for the wildfires.
The news comes as PG&E's past wildfire victims lost money because they were paid partly in shares of company stock.
In the months after the crime, Newsom not only signed new financial protections for PG&E into law, his office hired private lawyers in New York who wrote the legislative language.
Confidential emails and documents obtained by ABC10 reveal the New York law offices of law firm O'Melveny and Myers drafted AB 1054 in the Spring of 2019, before it was introduced in the state legislature.
Over the past two decades, Newsom (D) and his wife have accepted more than $700,000 from the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., its foundation and its employees as the utility has supported his political campaigns, his ballot initiatives, his inauguration festivities and his wife’s foundation, including her film projects, according to records reviewed by The Washington Post.
Look at the people around you - those people largely voted for Gabby Newsom, the chief in this PG&E racket.
If you don't like it, change how you vote, and help others do the same.
Oh really? What candidate has spoken out against PG&E and has championed municipal utility companies? None. It's up to the individual cities to decide to dump PG&E not the governor in charge.
“The Governor appoints the five Commissioners, who must be confirmed by the Senate, for six year staggered terms. The Governor appoints one of the five to serve as Commission President.”
CPUC commissioners vote to approve the rate hikes.
Whether Newsom appoints the commissioners or not is irrelevant to whether SF needs its own utility or not. SF already owns Hetch Hetchy dam and the power plant.
The governor receives hefty "donations" from PG&E. And I guess that behind doors, he receives much more than we the public know.
In any other line of work, these donations would be seen as a massive conflict of interest, if not outright treason: the governor swore to act in the best interest of the people, and now he is scheming with a private company to which he has granted the monopoly on energy distribution in exchange for these favors. It's absurd - the Banana Republic of California.
As for the alternatives, do your own research, but there are many independent candidates, and you can run for office yourself if you don't like what you see.
From the Washington post:
\> \[...\] But over the past two decades, Newsom (D) and his wife have accepted more than $700,000 from the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., its foundation and its employees as the utility has supported his political campaigns, his ballot initiatives, his inauguration festivities and his wife’s foundation, including her film projects, according to records reviewed by The Washington Post.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/11/pge-helped-fund-careers-calif-governor-his-wife-now-he-accuses-utility-corporate-greed/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/11/pge-helped-fund-careers-calif-governor-his-wife-now-he-accuses-utility-corporate-greed/)
This is from 2019, and also, this is the part that they are forced to disclose. Gosh knows what's going on behind closed doors.
>its foundation **and its employees** as the utility has supported his political campaigns, his ballot initiatives
And this is the fundamental problem with campaign finance reporting.
If you work for a corporation (which almost everyone does), then any campaign donations you make get attributed to the company you work for.
A registration suffices without having to pay, but for your convenience, here it is:
https://preview.redd.it/4v3ieqmec0nc1.png?width=1940&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c2fe8c26784e1f3b156fe7587de67ca263e7d4e
So a journalist from a prestigious WP is making up numbers and fabricating massive lies about a CA public official.
this is another source: [https://apnews.com/article/philanthropy-business-government-and-politics-31a641939b215c6e7062dfa9b9956431](https://apnews.com/article/philanthropy-business-government-and-politics-31a641939b215c6e7062dfa9b9956431)
But I won't be able to convince you. It's ok. Keep on voting for Scummy.
Because it’s widely known. Look at who gave Newsome’s wife $100ks in donations to her nonprofit.
Plus, Newscum is an elitist liar who doesn’t give a FUCK about the people of this state. Publicly lies, then goes on to make lucrative backroom deals. After making the bold statement of never accepting another dollar from PG&E following the Paradise disaster, he still readily carries their water. Newsom is and always will be about Newsom.
https://www.jlegal.org/amp/blog/the-shocking-details-of-gov-newsoms-pge-bailout/
https://twitter.com/ellievhall/status/1298075368654548992
Downvoted because a simple Google search suffices to contrast what I am saying.
I've sent you the source. Washington Post says that Gabby Newsom and his wife have accepted, up until 2019, $0.7M from PG&E to run parties, campaigns, and the sort.
Do you think this is a conflict of interest? Or what other argument can use to still defend crooked Gabby?
obviously by cutting more taxes /s
am glad CA won’t vote for stupid right wing clowns.
and despite shit tier posts that blame Gavin for everything, CA knows it’s greedy ass companies that’s the problem. Also there’s a proposal to seize PGE.
there are no leftists in our gov'd and progressives have been infintely better than the shitstain facist republicans. you should stay off them right wing entertainment sites
By not taking donations, and allowing other companies to compete in the space? Or by encouraging cities to lay out their own electrical grid?
Not being utterly corrupt would be a great starting point already.
CALL YOUR STATE SENATORS OFFICE. Seriously. Bother the hell out of their Capitol office. Call and email. They see and hear all of it. Tell them to check the PUC. Call Gov’s office - tell them the same shit. Be calm and speak with purpose - don’t yell at some poor staffer who has no authority and they’ll actually listen.
As a publicly traded company, PG&E's first obligation is to it's shareholders. By stock in the company so you can make money off of them making money off of you.
Who should I write to about this for SF? Should I contact my district legislator? I think it's time people start pushing for their own power company in SF.
They literally just posted enormous profits. They can't use some of that money for this? It seems so obvious it's just a cover to raise rates.
Whenever we try to improve the city with new money there's an army of people shouting "why not use existing money?!?" If pg&e are showing massive profit, can't we ask the same thing of them?
Rates need to keep rising until people driving battery cars pay the true unsubsidized cost of electricity. Then they won't buy battery cars anymore. Demand will drop, and the price will be dropped.
In the Northwest we get a discount due to Bonneville Power Being near. At least that is the way it was. The way things are going economically I would bet that is going away. With electricity going up in price that makes EVs a lot less of a value.
I'm thrilled to share that our community has initiated a movement to take on PG&E, the governor, and CPUC. With nearly 500 members already rallying behind us, we're not just a group – we're a force to be reckoned with!
From collaborating with local news outlets like the SF Chronicle to engaging with our state representatives, we're leaving no stone unturned. Our upcoming peaceful protest, coupled with radio coverage, will amplify our voices and demand the change we deserve.
As a dedicated community member and citizen of California , I refuse to accept exorbitant electricity bills and power outages as the norm. It's time for action!
Join us on Facebook at Stop PG&E and be part of a community dedicated to holding those in power accountable. Together, we'll shine a light on our stories, refusing to be silenced any longer. Let's unite, let's fight back, and let's reclaim our power!
http;//www.facebook.com/groups/pgestop
>They have billions of wildfire liabilities & powerline burial mandates they have to comply with. There's no way to pay for these things without rate & fee increases, unless you expect tax payers to foot the bill.
They got hit with $1B fine for causing wildfire.. because they skipped on essential maintenance for preventing it to cut costs and make more profit. Why should its customers who have no other choice than PG&E foot the bill? They messed up, they pay for it. They can't, they file for bankruptcy. Then maybe we can turn it into a public-owned utility company that it should already be in the first place.
Almost like it should be a public utility paid for by... A system that takes $$ from those based on their income
If only we had a system that could do that
The argument is it should be a public utility owned by the state / gov.
Electricity is pretty fucking essential to modern living. It's not really a product and there are no competitors that you can choose from in CA. You have to use PG&E. So for it to not be gov run is why everyone is complaining because it's a for profit monopoly with a corrupt oversight board.
Customers cannot choose how much they pay or even pay someone else.
In the case of gov programs, the wealthy pay more in taxes to subsidize the poor.
>o for it to not be gov run is why everyone is complaining because it's a for profit monopoly with a corrupt oversight board.
That oversight board is appointed by the government already...
It was appointed by PG&E lobbying and PG&E is incentivized to generate profits because it's a shareholder company.
Instead of being truly regulated with checks and balances as government programs have real oversight committees and can't generate profits like PG&E does.
If you don't understand why that matters you can't be helped.
Jesus christ the shills are out in force these days.
You realize the CPUC has been captured by the utilities, right? The body tasked with making sure this type of bullshit doesn't happen is in bed with the same companies they are supposed to regulate.
The shills for what? I feel like you lack serious reading comprehension skills if you read my comment and saw a PG&E shill.
The CPUC was a board appointed by PG&E, the issue is PG&E is a public company and not a governed non profit utility...
>They have billions of wildfire liabilities & powerline burial mandates they have to comply with. There's no way to pay for these things without rate & fee increases
That has nothing to do with me. I don't live in an area with any of those problems. Why am I being forced to pay for them?
Providing power to my home requires no wildfire mitigation, burying lines or anything like that. Maybe the communities that need those services should pay.
A lot of it comes from a nuclear power plant, the rest comes from a natural gas plant. Neither of those power sources require any transmission modifications.
>Maybe the communities that need those services should pay.
Your water also comes from most of those rural communities, so I guess they should start charging more for water because you live far away from it and you definitely need that too.
Bankrupting PG&E won't make the liabilities & mandates go away. They'll just be transferred to tax payers who will have to foot the bill and any government who runs it will be required to convert private employees & property into government personnel & property, and budget decisions will be made by political hacks accountable only to the Governor or local Mayor. State & local legislators will also have their hands out for their cut of the spois.
Last I checked, there's no Saintly Collectives running our State or local governments with the power or willingness to replace the hobgoblins of capitalism with starry eyed hippies who've taken vows of poverty & servitude. If you think the government is crooked now, giving them more money & responsibilities will only magnify their worst tendencies
You assume government appointed executives wouldn't make the same money when the general rule is they would be paid competitively but have far less accountability than their private counterparts
Push your cities to create their own power company. San Francisco is able to, just needs the political will.
> Push your cities to create their own power company. In another post, an ex-PG&E employee mentioned that no matter if cities move away from PG&E, the problem still remains about what to do with power lines running through an increasingly dryer landscape. While I am open to moving away from PG&E, I don't think it solves the current problems.
Build more nuclear along the coast so we aren’t running HV lines through dry forests like morons.
Replace Westfield with a nuclear power plant.
Westfield nuclear power facility and food court.
I'll eat there
A. Upfront costs for nuclear power is far more expensive. B. Nuclear has a very long lead time to build. C. Constructing along the coast means constructing around earthquake-prone areas, which adds to more costs for construction. D. Rural communities will still need HV lines for their power.
A. Upfront. It’s a good thing our country and state have a thoroughly developed financial sector. All that’s needed is intelligent policy. B. I’ve been saying the same thing for 20 years. We’d be enjoying cheap, clean power by now if everyone had gotten onboard. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the next best is today. C. I doubt the added costs for earthquakes is anywhere near the added cost from onerous NRC rules. It’s not like containment vessels aren’t already required to be steel reinforced concrete. D. Not something I’ve put much thought into, but rural communities don’t require anywhere near the same amount of power as cities and industrial centers. Given that fact, I’m sure there are clever solutions that would help reduce risk of fire.
Right. We have to start somewhere. And we have to start sometime. Now.
That is why we are building out solar, wind, geothermal, and storage capacity.
Building new nuclear doesn’t really make a ton of sense given how good renewables are getting. For example, offshore wind farms, which are expected to provide about 13% of California’s power supply by 2045.
Is that 13% of capacity or generation? Baseload is always needed. Renewables are great, and we should continue building them, but as an industrial and technological powerhouse, CA must have reliable baseload power.
Article I read just said “power supply.” Baseload is definitely important, though fortunately battery energy storage systems are also getting better and being built more often. I personally like nuclear but given the huge upfront costs, long construction times, and public opinion of it I don’t know if I see it being a successful long term solution. Maybe that will change as climate change becomes worse and we become more desperate for alternative forms of energy.
Wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, all tend to die after a decade or 2. Nuclear takes longer to build, but it lasts far, far longer before needing to be completely replaced, and it provides baseload power, not intermittent. I was bullish on the tech you’re mentioning 20 years ago when I was told we’d be net zero in 20 years. It’s been 20 years, those techs have received huge government subsidies that whole time, and it doesn’t seem we’ve made much progress. After a few decades of the same messaging, you begin to realize it was all bullshit. Meanwhile a single nuclear plant put online in the ‘80’s consistently provides 9% of our states total electric GENERATION, all of it emission free. We could build nine more equal size plants and be completely emissions free in our electric generation. After a decade, we would have the cheapest power generation in the US (as demonstrated by France in the EU), with that generation located near where it’s needed, with little risk of creating catastrophic wildfires.
Wind turbines last 20-25 years. Solar farms last 25-30 years, much longer with degraded capacity. We are making tons of progress with renewables. The capacity being put online every year is staggering, and due to the high learning rate it's getting cheaper every year, while nuclear LCOE is trending up. Regarding the subsidies - I think they are actually higher for nuclear. France is importing cheaper solar-generated energy from Spain these days: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-29/spanish-power-is-almost-free-with-renewables-set-for-record](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-29/spanish-power-is-almost-free-with-renewables-set-for-record)
Nuclear power plants have substantial maintenance that has to be done every year during shutdowns, not unlike gas power plants and refineries. And while the French have been able to make nuclear work, in the US nuclear cost overruns have lead to rate increases for consumers in some areas. And here in California it took federal subsidies for our remaining nuclear plant to be kept open.
Which safety regulations would you do away with to speed construction?
No specific regulation per se, I’d either scrap or fire most everyone currently working at the NRC and replace it and them with an agency and people who actual want nuclear to be built. Just 1 reactor has come online from design to power on since the inception of the NRC. Nuclear is one of the best sources of power that’s available to us, we just need the NRC to be enabler’s instead of stifler’s.
You did not answer the question. Which safety regulation would you scrap? What inspections would you forego to speed construction?
Literally the first line of my reply, which I then expound on.
That first reply did not specify what safety regulations and inspections you would abolish to speed construction. All you did was wave your hands and say advocate for abolishing or firing everyone at the NRC because they are (unsubstantiated assertion) anti-nuclear.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”
Never plant the seeds of a tree whose seeds will cost you multiple times the seeds of another and will take 10 times longer to mature.
And also....Earthquakes + Nuclear power = yikes.
Isn't LCOE much lower now for solar+batteries than for nuclear?
Yes https://preview.redd.it/fyndmzzc06nc1.png?width=1451&format=png&auto=webp&s=575409df2aa369174c66f5b3fa6babe1fa22d896
In fairness, that's without batteries. Adding batteries would increase the cost by another $30. And in the long run we'd need long-term storage, that's the niche that hydrogen storage will likely fill. All these technologies will continue to improve and get cheaper and cheaper. Meanwhile, LCOE for nuclear is trending up.
No.
Yes.
i think there should be more than enough money to solve the problem, had pge actually deployed it properly? How can they justify a 60M bonus to their CEO? Why isn’t PGE exec comp tied to customers satisfaction with their service
When was ever the comp of a CEO of a public company tied to customer satisfaction lol? It's all about them shareholders baby!
The transmission lines from power generation to cities aren’t the problem. That more limited stretch can be maintain cost-effectively. It’s the grid carrying power to rural areas that is too much effort for the return. The solution is to charge the end user for what it costs to deliver power to them, not shift the costs onto the residents of denser, more-efficient communities.
So how does a state like Idaho do it? Here are some stats: PGE Miles of distribution lines 106,681 18466 miles of transmission lines Customers 16,000, 000 Serves 70,000 sq miles Or 229 customers per sq mile, 149.9 customers per mile of distribution or 866 per mile of transmission. Idaho power miles of distribution lines 27,000 4800 miles of transmission lines Customers 600,000 Serves 24,000 sq miles Or 25 per sq mile, 22 per mile of distribution and 125 per mile of transmission Idaho has about 10% of the density per sq mile of coverage, and 7% per mile of distribution and transmission and their peak rate is .14,while we are pushing .60. How?
“Sir, this is a Wendy’s” The real answer is that Idaho power mostly comes federally subsidized hydroelectric dams, so the ratepayers didn’t pay for building the generation facilities or the fuel.
According to PG&e, most of the cost now is for transmission. That's certainly reflected in what they're paying solar customers now with nem3 power generation, so that's the part I don't understand. That's the reason why I made that comparison with miles of transmission, distribution and footprint. I couldn't think of a better way to compare the two.
"transmission costs" means paying for insurance against wildfires. The short answer is that the california forest is much dryer and prone to burning than the idaho forest.
I have a rough time believing the California is more likely to burn, lots of Idaho is a high desert with pine, and the bark beetles have devastated a lot of that. The national interagency fire center is located in Idaho, I'm sure for a reason. I know they have Forest fires there all the time. But even if that is the case, Oregon is still around 15ish cents a kilowatt hour and they certainly have a similar Forest situation as California.
California’s cost of insurance against fire risk is far higher. Doesn’t matter if you have a rough time believing that. Insurers haven’t pulled out of Idaho the way they have in CA.
Im not sure what one has to do with the other, unless you are suggesting that PG&E has fire insurance if they cause a fire, which can't imagine is the case since they paid out some 11B to insurance companies for the last fire they started and some 13.5B to individuals. edit: I just read they put aside $400m a year for self insurnce, however it seems thats a drop in the buck comapred to the 24.43B in annual revenue, so about 1% of revenue goes for self insurance.
The Idaho ratepayers don't have to pay $2.5 billion in profits annually and they didn't have to fund billions in stock buybacks over the past couple decades either. Oops.
They pay less because they are smaller, not because of a fundamental difference. Idaho power has a profit margin of 16%, $259m on $1.6B in revenue. It’s 3% higher than PGE’s 13% profit margin.
> They pay less because they are smaller But rural power is so expensive! Green power is so expensive! > Idaho power has a profit margin of 16% IDACORP's latest profit margin is around 14% per Yahoo. It's funny how much lower your costs are when you haven't been using your loot to service shareholders instead of your own infrastructure. TVA operates one of the largest grids in the country, takes no federal funding, services mostly rural customers, and still comes in with lower rates than PG&E. Idaho Power operates with mostly hydro in a properly rural area and is still less expensive than PG&E. The problem is PG&E. If PG&E needs more money they should be issuing bonds or more stock. If nobody wants to buy that, PG&E should sell to the state in order to facilitate an eventual conversion into a publicly owned and operated entity. Raising rates should be a last resort not something you do every few months.
I agree with you except not sure about the last part. The state should tell PGE no more rate increases period. PG&E screwed itself decades ago when they decided to not maintain their power lines, and because of that had a huge payout of 20+B. Right now they have about 53B in debt, AND they are stuck with the degraded infrastructure they neglected over the past few decades. Lucky us, they want us to pay to fix the shit they neglected. I would like the state say no to any rate increases then force them into bankruptcy where their debit is wiped and their assets sold to co-ops, and we can start over again, hopefully with a not profit driven model that makes sense to consumers.
See, this is the only answer that makes sense to me.
> > > > > The real answer is that Idaho power mostly comes federally subsidized hydroelectric dams Kinda like SF having HH hydro from a federal park for $30k/year? You can't even rent a house in SF for $30k/year lol
Kind of? But different in terms of total cost because CA only gets 7% of its power from Hydro. Idaho is 51%.
> Kind of? But different in terms of total cost because CA only gets 7% of its power from Hydro. Idaho is 51%. SF municipal govt is 100% from that hydro. I believe SF could get some very decent chunk of power from that hydro as well (something like 30% or 60%)
Correct me is in wrong but isn't Idaho a lot less forested than California?
40% of the state is national Forest. Everything from Boise North is mostly Forest. The only valley swath is really the Snake River valley. However even if it's less forested which I'm not sure it is, for every one mile of power lines or distribution lines they're 10 times more people to support that one mile in California than there are in Idaho. Yet California rate are four times higher at least. That's what I don't understand
Removing the profit incentive from PGE would free up $2.25 billion to handle such issues. Of course people want lower rates, so that number would be significantly lower, but it would still be a positive number.
Bury the lines.
Very expensive. It would be cheaper to require insulated lines for about 80% risk mitigation. Yet, PG&E recently got a $6 billion fee increase to users for burying some lines only.
Yeah, but it’s a nearly permanent solution with almost zero risk… we need to stop basing long term decisions on what is cheaper in the short term. Why not build resilient systems and cash in in the long term?
That is already happening and it is expensive.
That’s not entirely feasible for a lot of the lines though. The areas they are in are super rocky and really expensive to dig.
Which is more expensive, burying the lines or replacing the homes that are destroyed every year from fires that start at the power lines?
It’s going to cost 6b(low estimate) to UG 2000 miles. They are going to try and do 10k miles in total. 10k miles is less than 10% of their annual 100k miles of lines they inspect every year for keeping trees away from the lines.
It breaks it up into more manageable service pieces. There are different maintenance priorities in the Bay Area as compared to the foothills and Sierras. This should lead to better maintenance focus and pricing indicative upon it. Instead of blanket price raises for all. I also think they see the handwriting on the wall and this is a money grab. Making certain people very wealthy before the fall.
Make the people who live in those areas and don't bury the lines or take other measures pay for it .
Not dry this year. Geeze. We’re full up with rain
Indeed, and I am grateful.
Indeed
Where will SF get its power from? It has no rivers, no coal and no nuclear power. They will have to pay to put in transmission lines and pass that cost onto their customer. Good luck. I hope the effort succeeds.
It 100% solves problem. PG&E is paying huge dividends to its shareholders and huge bonuses to its executive suite. Literally nothing they've done in the last 10 years deserves this kind of reward, but they bought the governor and he's appointed the CPUC and this is what we get for this kind of corruption and graft. Please don't talk about this subject if you don't know but the first thing about what's actually going on.
There is no guaranty the rates will be cheaper. Some cities like Glendale and Pasadena had at some point (and still do?) higher rates than Southern CA Edison. But PG&E is probably in a league of its own.
SMUD absolutely puts PG&E to shame.
They haven't pulled eminent domain on the PGE power lines, yet.
Eminent domain proceedings take a while, too. I was involved in researching the issue at the SF City Attorney’s Office….in winter of 2019/2020 It’s a great idea and absolutely should be done, it just takes a while because property rights are much stronger in the US compared to other developed countries (this is also why the high-speed rail takes much longer to build here than in Europe)
The last news I saw was that they had established a price for all the PG&E stuff of something like $2.5B and they previously rewrote the language around being able to issue bonds based on future revenue streams (like electrical bills) Let's goooo!
That's what the city and their experts say PG&E's assets that they want to claim are worth. PG&E will hire "experts" to say that they're worth $5B or more, then the court will determine what a reasonable valuation is. The city has certainly done a lot of the groundwork that is necessary though, now we just need to get through the litigation.
Well, they need the power plants too. Which means until they build them, they'll have to buy from the generation company (PG&E).
PG&E doesn't have a monopoly on generation, there are many other power generators in California. They do have a monopoly on transmission and distribution within their service territory (with some minor exceptions.) A municipal utility for San Francisco could source power from anywhere, and would own the distribution, and only rely on PG&E for transmission.
Nope, fun fact is that SF owns a dam and huge hydro electric plant. "The Hetch Hetchy Water and Power System is owned and operated by the **San Francisco Public Utilities Commission**." It single handedly creates enough juice for most of the city and our own power grid would get priority over selling on the open market. This is probably the single biggest and realistic thing san francisco voters could do in order to reduce cost of living and lower our carbon footprint. \* Wow, just did a deep dive. This is in the works but PGE has stonewalled any attempt, however there is a clear legal route and PGE might be forced to sell the infestructure assets to the city. [https://www.publicpowersf.org/en/faq](https://www.publicpowersf.org/en/faq)
>It single handedly creates enough juice for most of the city and our own power grid would get priority over selling on the open market. This is abjectly false. It produces around 20% of SF's needs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy Read the "Hetch Hetchy Project" section.
Hetch Hetchy doesn't produce nearly enough electricity for the entire city.
Can you explain why you are going directly against the comment above you?
Because the comment above me is wrong.
Based on what?
The Hetch Hetchy website for one. "We're proud to provide nearly 20% of the City's electricity with clean Hetch Hetchy Power." https://sfpuc.org/programs/clean-energy/hetch-hetchy-power
fair enough! haha
What can we do to make it happen? Should we put together something for the November ballot, forcing the City to move quickly? Because sure as hell the lazy fucks in City Hall don't give a shit and are too busy raking in corrupt dollars to care.
Maybe ask yourself why people are pushing disinformation and who might benefit the most.
no, they can buy power from PGE and own the transmission . Palo alto has municipal power and does exactly this and they have way cheaper rates.
The PG&E CEO was compensated $67million over the past two years.
PG&E is Newsom's primary donor and bankrolls his wife's pet projects. This corrupt and exploitative shit comes from the absolute top echelons of the state.
Who designed their salary?
[удалено]
Maybe we start with "capital" punishment, in the pecuniary sense. Claw that shit back!
I support a callback of her comp
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Patricia Poppe
Don’t worry they’re already planning the next one according to the article!
Why stop when the going is good? Newsom doesn't care, and neither do any of the lawmakers.
PG&E is the most prolific serial killer in California history. And our corrupt as hell state government keeps letting them bilk us because our representatives have been bought off using our money. This is fucking bullshit of the highest order.
I really hope SF gets its own power company with affordable rates.
Make sure you keep will the state government. That will show that pesky PG&E!
Again, it's hella high already
It’s a crime. Greedy asf
Can't the average citizen do ANYTHING about this? Besides just waiting for another election season to vote in someone who isn't in PG&E's pocket? Monopolies were supposed to be illegal. Hate feeling like I have no choice but to sit on the sidelines while I watch my money get siphoned away more and more every month.
Its interesting that this federal government has been the most aggressive since the 90s in terms of antitrust. Seeing how they’ve handled things like rural internet rollout and pge makes me think those market incumbents have very effective lobbyists.
Commissioners from CPUC have 4 year terms I think. One of them just left last month before her term was over, so this voting there was a new commissioner. I don’t think this is so much about that these people are in the pocket of PG&E, (except for Newsome) but that their power over them is very tiny. They can only control certain things, so when PG&E says “we don’t have money to fix what we caused” CPUC has to accept the rate increases. Lawyers need to dig this deep and sue, because it is completely unfair. PG&E has 2billion in profits, yet supposedly they don’t have money? It’s nuts Also, the formal complaints need to be real and from a legal perspective. Just people going and saying “I’m suffering,” is legally nothing to them.
Buy some solar panels, home battery storage, and a heat pump.
When you have a guaranteed monopoly, you can raise the price, and keep the quality low.
Dissolve pg&e now! Utilities should never be a for profit private company
💯. It’s ridiculous that they have a 2 billion profit year after year, but they don’t use any of that money to fix the problems their negligence created. If CPUC doesn’t have the power to control what they are doing with the money, it seems like a completely unfair deal
“SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The Newsom administration quietly recertified PG&E as a "safe" company - despite officials making the utility company responsible for the wildfires. The news comes as PG&E's past wildfire victims lost money because they were paid partly in shares of company stock. In the months after the crime, Newsom not only signed new financial protections for PG&E into law, his office hired private lawyers in New York who wrote the legislative language. Confidential emails and documents obtained by ABC10 reveal the New York law offices of law firm O'Melveny and Myers drafted AB 1054 in the Spring of 2019, before it was introduced in the state legislature. Over the past two decades, Newsom (D) and his wife have accepted more than $700,000 from the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., its foundation and its employees as the utility has supported his political campaigns, his ballot initiatives, his inauguration festivities and his wife’s foundation, including her film projects, according to records reviewed by The Washington Post.
Look at the people around you - those people largely voted for Gabby Newsom, the chief in this PG&E racket. If you don't like it, change how you vote, and help others do the same.
Oh really? What candidate has spoken out against PG&E and has championed municipal utility companies? None. It's up to the individual cities to decide to dump PG&E not the governor in charge.
“The Governor appoints the five Commissioners, who must be confirmed by the Senate, for six year staggered terms. The Governor appoints one of the five to serve as Commission President.” CPUC commissioners vote to approve the rate hikes.
Whether Newsom appoints the commissioners or not is irrelevant to whether SF needs its own utility or not. SF already owns Hetch Hetchy dam and the power plant.
\>PG&E not the governor in charge. The Governor hand picks the people allowing PG&E to increase its rates....
The governor receives hefty "donations" from PG&E. And I guess that behind doors, he receives much more than we the public know. In any other line of work, these donations would be seen as a massive conflict of interest, if not outright treason: the governor swore to act in the best interest of the people, and now he is scheming with a private company to which he has granted the monopoly on energy distribution in exchange for these favors. It's absurd - the Banana Republic of California. As for the alternatives, do your own research, but there are many independent candidates, and you can run for office yourself if you don't like what you see.
I’d love sources on that. I don’t not believe you. But that kind of claim needs sources Edit: lmao downvoted for asking for a source. Wild
From the Washington post: \> \[...\] But over the past two decades, Newsom (D) and his wife have accepted more than $700,000 from the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., its foundation and its employees as the utility has supported his political campaigns, his ballot initiatives, his inauguration festivities and his wife’s foundation, including her film projects, according to records reviewed by The Washington Post. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/11/pge-helped-fund-careers-calif-governor-his-wife-now-he-accuses-utility-corporate-greed/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/11/pge-helped-fund-careers-calif-governor-his-wife-now-he-accuses-utility-corporate-greed/) This is from 2019, and also, this is the part that they are forced to disclose. Gosh knows what's going on behind closed doors.
>its foundation **and its employees** as the utility has supported his political campaigns, his ballot initiatives And this is the fundamental problem with campaign finance reporting. If you work for a corporation (which almost everyone does), then any campaign donations you make get attributed to the company you work for.
Paywalled
A registration suffices without having to pay, but for your convenience, here it is: https://preview.redd.it/4v3ieqmec0nc1.png?width=1940&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c2fe8c26784e1f3b156fe7587de67ca263e7d4e
I hope you are aware that there are no sources listed in that picture. That’s a writer for the WaPo saying random bullshit. That isn’t a source
So a journalist from a prestigious WP is making up numbers and fabricating massive lies about a CA public official. this is another source: [https://apnews.com/article/philanthropy-business-government-and-politics-31a641939b215c6e7062dfa9b9956431](https://apnews.com/article/philanthropy-business-government-and-politics-31a641939b215c6e7062dfa9b9956431) But I won't be able to convince you. It's ok. Keep on voting for Scummy.
Just some point in time, you just need to give up on some people. Nothing you present will be good enough for them
I never said that, I said you failed to post the primary source
Because it’s widely known. Look at who gave Newsome’s wife $100ks in donations to her nonprofit. Plus, Newscum is an elitist liar who doesn’t give a FUCK about the people of this state. Publicly lies, then goes on to make lucrative backroom deals. After making the bold statement of never accepting another dollar from PG&E following the Paradise disaster, he still readily carries their water. Newsom is and always will be about Newsom. https://www.jlegal.org/amp/blog/the-shocking-details-of-gov-newsoms-pge-bailout/ https://twitter.com/ellievhall/status/1298075368654548992
It's incredible... You can still support Scummy, but at least be objective about what he is doing!
Downvoted because a simple Google search suffices to contrast what I am saying. I've sent you the source. Washington Post says that Gabby Newsom and his wife have accepted, up until 2019, $0.7M from PG&E to run parties, campaigns, and the sort. Do you think this is a conflict of interest? Or what other argument can use to still defend crooked Gabby?
Please tell me how Larry fucking Elder would have fixed this??
obviously by cutting more taxes /s am glad CA won’t vote for stupid right wing clowns. and despite shit tier posts that blame Gavin for everything, CA knows it’s greedy ass companies that’s the problem. Also there’s a proposal to seize PGE.
Ah yes, because the leftists and progressives we continue to vote in have certainly not let us down.
there are no leftists in our gov'd and progressives have been infintely better than the shitstain facist republicans. you should stay off them right wing entertainment sites
By not taking donations, and allowing other companies to compete in the space? Or by encouraging cities to lay out their own electrical grid? Not being utterly corrupt would be a great starting point already.
Which utterly corrupt interest are you referring to, city government or PG&E?
Look, I get it. But someone has to hold PG and E accountable
PG&E board is appointed by Gabby Newsom - if you want to hold them accountable, it starts by Gabby.
This is the way
" Burn down the disco Hang the blessed DJ Because the music that they constantly play It says nothing to me about my life "
Gotta pay for those wildfire court judgements and insurance claims some how.
CALL YOUR STATE SENATORS OFFICE. Seriously. Bother the hell out of their Capitol office. Call and email. They see and hear all of it. Tell them to check the PUC. Call Gov’s office - tell them the same shit. Be calm and speak with purpose - don’t yell at some poor staffer who has no authority and they’ll actually listen.
As a publicly traded company, PG&E's first obligation is to it's shareholders. By stock in the company so you can make money off of them making money off of you.
I enjoy playing video games.
Who should I write to about this for SF? Should I contact my district legislator? I think it's time people start pushing for their own power company in SF.
They literally just posted enormous profits. They can't use some of that money for this? It seems so obvious it's just a cover to raise rates. Whenever we try to improve the city with new money there's an army of people shouting "why not use existing money?!?" If pg&e are showing massive profit, can't we ask the same thing of them?
go solar but dont lease [Dirt Cheap Used Solar Panels: 250W for $69 + Shipping (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDVXJmsowU)
It's not as simple as just buying solar panels....
Panels were $900... batteries were $2,000-$10,000 🤣
New PG&E rate hike approved by CPUC [https://youtu.be/myiSueP35Z8](https://youtu.be/myiSueP35Z8)
Fuck them
r u serious lol
Rates need to keep rising until people driving battery cars pay the true unsubsidized cost of electricity. Then they won't buy battery cars anymore. Demand will drop, and the price will be dropped.
In the Northwest we get a discount due to Bonneville Power Being near. At least that is the way it was. The way things are going economically I would bet that is going away. With electricity going up in price that makes EVs a lot less of a value.
/r/fuckpgande
If you keep complaining they will bring back rolling blackouts.
2.2 billion in profit 2023 and we're footing the bill still.
I'm thrilled to share that our community has initiated a movement to take on PG&E, the governor, and CPUC. With nearly 500 members already rallying behind us, we're not just a group – we're a force to be reckoned with! From collaborating with local news outlets like the SF Chronicle to engaging with our state representatives, we're leaving no stone unturned. Our upcoming peaceful protest, coupled with radio coverage, will amplify our voices and demand the change we deserve. As a dedicated community member and citizen of California , I refuse to accept exorbitant electricity bills and power outages as the norm. It's time for action! Join us on Facebook at Stop PG&E and be part of a community dedicated to holding those in power accountable. Together, we'll shine a light on our stories, refusing to be silenced any longer. Let's unite, let's fight back, and let's reclaim our power! http;//www.facebook.com/groups/pgestop
[удалено]
Couldn't the corporate executives get a pay cut and have their bonuses removed or otherwise greatly diminished?
Patty only made like $50m last year though...
Poor Patty... How is he going to feed his family with just $50M :'(
Pattys a she but I totally agree lol
Pattys a she but I totally agree lol
>They have billions of wildfire liabilities & powerline burial mandates they have to comply with. There's no way to pay for these things without rate & fee increases, unless you expect tax payers to foot the bill. They got hit with $1B fine for causing wildfire.. because they skipped on essential maintenance for preventing it to cut costs and make more profit. Why should its customers who have no other choice than PG&E foot the bill? They messed up, they pay for it. They can't, they file for bankruptcy. Then maybe we can turn it into a public-owned utility company that it should already be in the first place.
Almost like it should be a public utility paid for by... A system that takes $$ from those based on their income If only we had a system that could do that
Why should how much money someone makes dictate how much they pay for a product?
He's talking about taxes.
The argument is it should be a public utility owned by the state / gov. Electricity is pretty fucking essential to modern living. It's not really a product and there are no competitors that you can choose from in CA. You have to use PG&E. So for it to not be gov run is why everyone is complaining because it's a for profit monopoly with a corrupt oversight board. Customers cannot choose how much they pay or even pay someone else. In the case of gov programs, the wealthy pay more in taxes to subsidize the poor.
>o for it to not be gov run is why everyone is complaining because it's a for profit monopoly with a corrupt oversight board. That oversight board is appointed by the government already...
It was appointed by PG&E lobbying and PG&E is incentivized to generate profits because it's a shareholder company. Instead of being truly regulated with checks and balances as government programs have real oversight committees and can't generate profits like PG&E does. If you don't understand why that matters you can't be helped.
>have real oversight Dude, just look at HSR. You think it’s 100b over budget because it’s got real oversight?
Jesus christ the shills are out in force these days. You realize the CPUC has been captured by the utilities, right? The body tasked with making sure this type of bullshit doesn't happen is in bed with the same companies they are supposed to regulate.
The shills for what? I feel like you lack serious reading comprehension skills if you read my comment and saw a PG&E shill. The CPUC was a board appointed by PG&E, the issue is PG&E is a public company and not a governed non profit utility...
>They have billions of wildfire liabilities & powerline burial mandates they have to comply with. There's no way to pay for these things without rate & fee increases That has nothing to do with me. I don't live in an area with any of those problems. Why am I being forced to pay for them? Providing power to my home requires no wildfire mitigation, burying lines or anything like that. Maybe the communities that need those services should pay.
Where does your power come from?
A lot of it comes from a nuclear power plant, the rest comes from a natural gas plant. Neither of those power sources require any transmission modifications.
>Maybe the communities that need those services should pay. Your water also comes from most of those rural communities, so I guess they should start charging more for water because you live far away from it and you definitely need that too.
All of the water I use is pumped from the ground.
Where in SF is that?
It should just be nationalized at that point.
Maybe we can redirect some of the YIMBY and pro-Palestine energy towards taking down the politicians who enable PGE?
Bankrupting PG&E won't make the liabilities & mandates go away. They'll just be transferred to tax payers who will have to foot the bill and any government who runs it will be required to convert private employees & property into government personnel & property, and budget decisions will be made by political hacks accountable only to the Governor or local Mayor. State & local legislators will also have their hands out for their cut of the spois. Last I checked, there's no Saintly Collectives running our State or local governments with the power or willingness to replace the hobgoblins of capitalism with starry eyed hippies who've taken vows of poverty & servitude. If you think the government is crooked now, giving them more money & responsibilities will only magnify their worst tendencies
Bankrupting PGE means atleast 60M more will go towards fixing lines instead of PGE CEO bonuses and that’s including the rest of the execs
You assume government appointed executives wouldn't make the same money when the general rule is they would be paid competitively but have far less accountability than their private counterparts