Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by inferiorhuman 2440 days ago
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.
1 comments
maxerickson 2440 days ago
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.

link
inferiorhuman 2440 days ago
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.

link