Why is that bad? Alternative is burning trees adding to pollution or people living in dark. You could offset the green coverage elsewhere in the state or country.
No the alternative is extremely reliable electricity that runs year round, and an occasional forest fire.
Which of course the fires are going to burn no matter what PG&E does. “But for an electrical spark” is a great way to lay the blame but ignores the hundreds (thousands?) of forest fires each year that start from non-electric sources.
In the scale of the maintenance required to have zero risk of fire — hundreds of billions of dollars — the $4 billion in dividends is a rounding error.
CA is going to have to do the math and decide it’s not worth $100 billion in guaranteed economic depression due to cutting power to try to save a 5% chance of a $100 billion fire.
CA is also going to have to do the math that no one is going to pay to maintain a grid that’s fire proof but charges $3/kWh for power.
Which of course the fires are going to burn no matter what PG&E does. “But for an electrical spark” is a great way to lay the blame but ignores the hundreds (thousands?) of forest fires each year that start from non-electric sources.
In the scale of the maintenance required to have zero risk of fire — hundreds of billions of dollars — the $4 billion in dividends is a rounding error.
CA is going to have to do the math and decide it’s not worth $100 billion in guaranteed economic depression due to cutting power to try to save a 5% chance of a $100 billion fire.
CA is also going to have to do the math that no one is going to pay to maintain a grid that’s fire proof but charges $3/kWh for power.