No more San Brunos!

|
(13)

For decades, the Guardian has done story after story on PG&E's deteriorating service, terrible maintenance record, continuous stonewalling and coverups, emphasis -- not on safety -- but on jacking up executive salaries and putting tens of millions into fighting community choice aggregation in San Francisco and Marin, and on the granddaddy of monopoly moves (last year's Prop 16). The San Francisco Chronicle, to its immense credit, has come through with a series of stories laying out PG&E's virtually criminal behavior in the San Bruno pipeline explosion.

Now TURN, the consumer watchdog over utilities, is putting forth an excellent way to fight back with a  tough petition and spreading the word. TURN says, "PG&E charged its customers $5 million to fix a gas pipeline under San Bruno in 2009, but delayed the work citing other priorities. The company then spent $5 million on executive bonuses."

Take action to demand PG&E make customer safety its top priority, and pay for the costs of this tragedy with its own profits, not our pockets.

Sign the petition here, and tell the PUC, "No more San Brunos."

Comments

Bruce, in your editorial above, you say:

“For decades, the Guardian has done story after story on PG&E's deteriorating service, terrible maintenance record, continuous stonewalling and coverups …”

Right you are. PG&E has a miserable overall record, and The Guardian deserves credit for exposing the mess to the public.

However, The Guardian has helped perpetuate the problem by the stupidity of its suggested solutions.

For example, some years ago The Guardian backed an initiative on the ballot that would create public power in SF.

I, for one, was all ready to vote for it. However, I discovered that the new agency would be run by an elected board, with no professional qualifications required for membership. Unbelievable.

It would be like having the board of supes run PG&E. You can imagine the results:

You’d turn on the stove, and you’d get a stream of water. You’d turn on the spigot on the kitchen sink, and gas would come out. And when you complained, you’d be accused of being ideologically incorrect.

The stupidity of The Guardian is no solution for the greed of PG&E.

Let’s bring practical intelligence back to progressive politics in SF.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

In your haste to castigate your nemesis, you forgot to tell us who, in your opinion, would make a good candidate for running public power in SF.

What is your enlightened suggestion?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

A smart proposal for public power would include some professional qualifications for those elected to serve on the governing board.

For example, an advanced degree in engineering, public administration, economics, business administration, etc., or comparable experience.

It won't do to let just anyone serve who gets elected, as is now the case with the board of supes, for example.

The voters have an overall low opinion for the board of supes, as reflected in poll after poll. That disdain will carry over onto any proposal for public power that would create a board reminiscent of the supes.

There's nothing progressive about empowering ineptitude.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 9:52 pm

I took on the powermen and the powermen won.

How many propositions have we have had on public power?

I've lost count.

How many have prevailed?

Easy. None.

Bruce, give it up, it ain't gonna happen?

Why not? Because nobody except you gives a damn about this issue? If the lights come on every day, that's good enough for me.

Posted by Tom on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 6:24 pm

you have to suck a dick?
Would that also be "good enough" for you?
Or are there limits to what you will tolerate in return for electricity and natural gas?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

unreliable as Muni, then I'd probably suck a few dicks to have P, G and E return and switch back on the lights.

If it's not broke, don't fix it. Public power is about politics not power. The left just wants to get their hands on the revenues. It was NEVER about rate cuts.

Posted by Tom on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 8:04 pm

Now that we have established there are no limits to what you would be willing to do in exchange for electricity and natural gas...

"The left just wants to get their hands on the revenues. It was NEVER about rate cuts."
Do you have any factual support for this statement?
Or do you just feel it in your gut, like your buddy George?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 8:15 pm

Unless you know otherwise, the SFBG have NEVER advocated public power on the grounds that our power bills will go down. They've NEVER argued that it would be run "at cost"

If they had, those propositions might actually have passed.

The intent was always for the city to simply requisition PG and E's profits, and use it for all the usual progressive pork.

So we voted it down, repeatedly, and will again if invited.

Posted by Tom on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 8:58 am

You wrote that:
"The left just wants to get their hands on the revenues. It was NEVER about rate cuts."
And you have no facts whatsoever to support your statement.

You claimed there was a monster in your ass.
Someone asked you to prove it.
Your proof consists of a challenge for others to disprove your unbelievable statement.

Let's investigate the veracity of your statement, shall we?
lmgtfy.com/?q=sfbg+%20lower+rates+pg%26e

Now. Are you going to keep playing stupid?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 9:50 am

by showing me where in the various SFBG-inspired public power propositions, there was an explicit commitment NOT to retain the profits for the city but rather to use it to reduce power bills for consumers.

That would be trivially easy for you to do IF of course it were true, which you and I both know it is not.

You're the one asking for proof of a negative.

Posted by Tom on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 3:49 pm

This was your claim:
"The left just wants to get their hands on the revenues. It was NEVER about rate cuts."

Why should I waste my time disproving your claim?
You made it. You prove it.
Until you do, you will keep looking like you are full of shit.

Instead of supporting your initial claim with facts, you cobbled together a second claim:
"the SFBG have NEVER advocated public power on the grounds that our power bills will go down. They've NEVER argued that it would be run "at cost"
Your new claim, that there have been no
"SFBG-inspired public power propositions" in which "there was an explicit commitment NOT to retain the profits for the city but rather to use it to reduce power bills for consumers.",
is incoherent.
This is obviously due to your desperation at not being able to support your first claim.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

you cannot find a shred of evidence that public power has EVER been presented to the voters in a way that indicates that rates will be reduced.

I've looked for evidence of that and can't find it.

Evidently neither can you.

Posted by Tom on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

"The truth is that public-power systems all over California offer lower rates than PG&E. "
http://www.sfbayguardian.com/2008/08/20/pge-lie-week

Here’s what we have established Tom:
You will do anything for PG&E in return for electricity and gas. You are even willing to suck the dicks of the corporate officers of PG&E.
This puts you in a minority.
Most of us are not willing to accept never ending rate increases and more frequent deadly explosions, while PG&E reward themselves with more and more of our money.
You have also shown that you will make ridiculous, obviously untrue statements. You have shown that, when challenged, you do not have the intellectual capacity to argue facts.
Look at the clock, Tom!
It’s time for you to get PG&E’s dick back in your mouth.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 5:53 pm