[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
'Public Ownership Can Eliminate Some of Those Warped Incentives Associated With Monopoly' Janine Jackson ([link removed])

The April 17, 2020, episode ([link removed]) of CounterSpin included an archived interview with Democracy Collaborative’s Johanna Bozuwa about public utilities and wildfires, which originally aired November 1, 2019 ([link removed]) . This is a lightly edited transcript.
Play
Stop
pop out
*

X

MP3 Link ([link removed])
Business Insider: California is becoming unlivable, according to science

Business Insider (11/14/19 ([link removed]) )

Janine Jackson: Last fall, people were using words like “unlivable ([link removed]) ” to describe parts of California, where wildfires and power outages were driving new kinds of crises and exacerbating existing ones. Climate disruption, of course, was at the heart of it, but also a private utility system that isn't—and hasn't been—incentivized to address it.

Johanna Bozuwa, co-manager of the Climate and Energy Program at the Democracy Collaborative ([link removed]) , talked with CounterSpin in early November ([link removed]) . I asked first about the power outages ([link removed]) planned by the utility company Pacific Gas & Electric ([link removed]) because they were concerned that power lines might trigger wildfires in high winds, as had in fact happened in 2018, killing 85 people ([link removed]) . But can shutting off power when conditions could spark fires, which—due to climate disruption—is going to be an awful lot of times, seriously serve as Plan A?

***

JB: There’s a lot of history ([link removed]) that’s here, in terms of PG&E not investing in its grid for so many years, and really putting shareholder profits ahead of the infrastructure that we now have, which has created this concept of the “new normal ([link removed]) .” But it also doesn’t have to be. I mean, having these power shutoffs again and again? Governor Newsom has even said, these are incredibly not surgical ([link removed]) . They are doing blanket shut-offs, because they’reafraid of liability ([link removed]) .

But they’re also not providing the infrastructure ([link removed]) that communities need to actually make it through these. So their phone lines are off, you can’t get on to their website, and there’s only a generator station for every county. And so that’s just showing that this is not just them taking precautions, this is them severely mismanaging ([link removed]) a situation in which people are losing their power, and losing access to maybe life-sustaining medical apparatuses ([link removed]) as well.

JJ: And you point to history. They aren’t just any utility that is being forced to deal with climate disruption ([link removed] disruption/f75e9) ; there’s more that we should know about the role they’ve played vis-à-vis climate change, ([link removed]) isn’t there?
Energy & Policy Institute: Utilities Knew

Energy & Policy Institute (7/17 ([link removed]) )

JB: Oh, yes, definitely. The Energy and Policy Institute had a really important exposé ([link removed]) . We hear a lot about “Exxon knew ([link removed]) ” and “Shell knew ([link removed]) ” on the news. But utilities knew, too; they were part and parcel to the climate disinformation campaigns ([link removed]) that have happened in the past and have sowed disinformation, and PG&E was a part of that as well.

So PG&E is not a good actor in this situation; they are the ones that were able to make money off of fossil fuels for so many years, and stopping action on climate change for years as well. And now they are paying the price, with their own infrastructure that they failed to invest in ([link removed]) so that it was ready for the new climate that they had, in part, given us.

JJ: Alternatives are not just possible; they are, as you write ([link removed]) , “waiting.” So let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about the idea of public utilities ([link removed]) .

JB: Yeah, absolutely. So I advocate that PG&E should be transitioned into public ownership ([link removed]) , because it can eliminate some of those warped incentives that are associated with monopoly, investor-owned utilities that operate our energy systems. And we can move towards a situation in which a public good is provided by a public service. By moving to a public institution, we are going to have, hopefully, a more accountable utility, whose shareholders and stockholders are us. It is the people who are living in California, and not the shareholders who are hundreds of miles away.

You talk a lot about the media; it’s been really interesting for me to look at some of the coverage that’s been happening around the investors that are circling PG&E right now. They’re saying, “Oh, we’ll take it over,” these venture capitalists like Paul Singer ([link removed]) , who has been in bed with the Koch brothers for years, investing in anti-climate sentiments. And we see the same thing with Berkshire Hathaway ([link removed]) , which is another major utility company that has been trying to stop distributed solar across the United States, just the type of resiliency we need for California.

But there are other options that are on the table right now, and they’re in action. San Francisco just put in a bid to municipalize ([link removed]) their area, so that they could take back the grid, so that they could be in charge of their own destiny.

And similarly, San Jose, one of the biggest cities that PG&E provides service to, is saying, actually, you know what we should do? We should create a cooperative utility ([link removed]) so that it is beholden to the people of California, and we’re taking over PG&E at the statewide level.
Johanna Bozuwa

Johanna Bozuwa: "This is a huge opportunity for California to create an energy system that’s rooted in climate justice, that’s rooted in the realities of the changing climate, and how they’re going to ensure that they actually are creating a resilient California."

JJ: As we discussed when we talked ([link removed]) about public banks on this show with Trinity Tran a few weeks ago, the word “public” isn’t like pixie dust; it doesn’t automatically make things work in a better way. But public utilities would have certain criteria about being democratized, about being decentralized, about being equitable. It’s not just a goal, in other words, but a way to get there, and who is involved in the process.

JB: Absolutely. It’s not a silver bullet, but it does provide us this opportunity to have more recourse. And the other thing is, we’re building this thing from scratch, right—or not from scratch, there is a history of public ownership in the energy sector. But we have the ability to design into that institution things like decentralization, things like equity, things like a democratized system, and build upon what we’ve seen work in the past, and also where we’ve seen public utilities historically fail. This is a huge opportunity for California to create an energy system that’s rooted in climate justice, that’s rooted in the realities of the changing climate, and how they’re going to ensure that they actually are creating a resilient California.


Read more ([link removed])

© 2020 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .