Californians gave monopoly rights to PG&E long ago.... now theyre questioning those rights. How much of PG&E decision to cut power to large groups of customers, is about everyones safety, and how much about covering their own financial risk? And what about all those laws weve passed over the years, restricting peoples ability live off grid? Poll below, pick as many options as you like.
PG&E could have invested in anti-fire measures, but they paid shareholders instead
Solar panels won’t start fires. Great reason to have them on your house.
Run the cables underground, for Pete’s sake! We do it with water for the most part (how many aqueducts do we see these days?). Plus, if wind is the problem, why aren’t they investing in more windmill-generators? Oh, I forgot: they cause cancer.
Without doing any research at all, Im sure theres a strong record of PGE blocking funding and research into everything from local tradesmen learning to work with alternative energy sources, to actual development of infrastructure, to even finding ways to zone against private investment and research.
@MarkiusMahamius I’m confident you have done more research on these subjects than they have!
They avoided doing maintenance so as to give share holders more money. Novel idea - make shareholders have a responsibility in the companies they invest. The amount of responsibility could be related to the amount of money paid out.