What do we have to lose? Other than more lives than PG&E has already taken from us... given that PG&E has caused fires many times so far it seems worthwhile to attempt more direct methods of fixing this.
If the regulators taking over somehow makes it worse, we can always privatize it again. There are other private power companies in the state that will remain private.
Right, but you're automatically assuming it will be worse. We have many examples of well-operated state-owned power companies. It's an obvious thing to try since it's already worked elsewhere. Other incentive methods have not forced PG&E to fix their behavior.
I don't think OnlineGladiator is assuming it will be worse. You asked, "what do we have to lose?", and they're answering the question by pointing out that we still have a lot to lose.
There are 365 days in a typical year. That's the theoretical limit for how many days Californians can go without power. That should give you an idea how much you have to lose from a power availability aspect. On top of that, there are millions upon millions of acres of unburnt land in California. A even more mismanaged PG&E could result in many more fires than we've seen thus far.
Considering even places like Syria and Venezuela have power most of the time, I think the idea that a state-owned power company would be unable to provide electricity for even one second of the year is an unrealistic consideration.
I agree there is a lot to lose. But I think you're being a little aggressive with your negativity.
If the regulators taking over somehow makes it worse, we can always privatize it again. There are other private power companies in the state that will remain private.
reply