[maxerickson]

If there are areas that we can't afford to safely provide power to, we shouldn't provide power to those areas anymore.

This is course a bummer given the past effort to provide power to those areas, but maybe it's okay to acknowledge mistakes.

[patfla]

Unlikely to happen (at least now) in a place that's, uh, culturally like the US.

We're in California and are in a community that was affected by PG&E's power shut off.

I think one problem in California is that since I first arrived in the 1980s, the population has grown from 22 to close to 40 mln. And given, again, US cultural proclivities, there's a significant number of people who'd love to move out into at least near-wilderness - but they still expect to be provided with their utilities. Some may be fine living off-grid - but not others. And there's no way, in the US, you can tell them that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Especially if they're rich and some portion of those people moving out into their dream home in or near wilderness are rich and figure that entitles them to having it all.

[maxerickson]

They are welcome to pay for it, especially if they are rich and want it bad.

[inferiorhuman]

They are welcome to pay for it, especially if they are rich and want it bad.

Why shouldn't PG&E pay for it? They blew their safety budget on executive bonuses. Hell, look at how many hundreds of millions PG&E spends annually on stock buybacks to appease the shareholders.

[maxerickson]

The other poster is talking about people moving into the near wilderness.

I don't support other utility customers paying for that. I doubt you do either. That's who pays if PG&E foots the bill.

[inferiorhuman]

The other poster is talking about people moving into the near wilderness.

Define wilderness, there are plenty of people not in dense urban cities in California.

I doubt you do either.

When you assume you make an ass out of "u" and "me". I think rural electrification is important. More important than stock buybacks, executive compensation, and astronomically expensive lobbyists like Willie Brown. Rural service and higher rates don't necessarily go hand in hand.

That said I'd be more okay with paying increased rates for more comprehensive service than I am with paying increased rates to fund PG&E negligence.

[FooHentai]

>If there are areas that we can't afford to safely provide power to, we shouldn't provide power to those areas anymore.

Isn't that exactly what just happened and exactly what everyone's complaining about?

[dragonwriter]

No, what just happened is PG&E was forced to cut power because it has for years prioritized dividends over it's safety obligations, not because there are places to which power cannot be safely delivered.

This isn't a can't be done safely problem, it's a private firm gambling to squeeze out more short-term profits and hoping it doesn't blow up in their face problem.

[maxerickson]

I have the feeling that poor regulation and mismanagement are bigger contributors than affordability (or whether "safe" lines can be built).

[shortandsweet]

They are required to provide that power. By law.