In article <c0c79349-2a6c-4874-b4d9-8013532687c8@mtcc.com> you write:
run but are now showing their long term consequences, notably land use that encourages sprawl and construction in ill-suited areas
If we stopped construction in all of the ill-suited areas, we'd stop construction all together, and tear down much more. We have it all here: earthquakes, floods, fires; often the trifecta. We could certainly be smarter, but the nature of the geography here is both a blessing and a curse.
Among California's many problems is a bizarre terror of upzoning and infill construction, hence the sprawl. Here in my rustic bit of upstate New York you can build a two-family anywhere you can build a single family and the world has not come to an end.
PG&E is especially egregious as it has extremely high rates and piss-poor maintenance. Where does all of that money go? Execs and shareholders.
Evidently not since they've been through bankruptcy a few times. I think they're just institutionally incompetent as well as having an unusually environmentally hostile territory to serve. (Around here when the power company screws up, the power fails but the county does not catch fire.)
I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but whatever it is cannot have those perverse incentives.
The LA DWP seems to do OK. R's, John