• marine_mustang
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    6 months ago

    Because he, and the CPUC, want to make absolutely sure that there is no escape from the investor-owned utilities.

  • hotelbravo722@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Because he is not an actual progressive. Hes just a spoiled rich kid who like to pretend to be a progressive.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Newsom was a Feinstein protege. He’s a centrist who does some progressive things because he has to in order to get elected in a progressive state. In national office, I suspect he’d be politically positioned similarly to Obama and Biden, though probably with more showmanship.

  • Veraxus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    “This would mean fewer people paying our for-profit utility companies, and can’t allow that.” - implied corrupt, capitalist dirtbag Alice Reynolds, very unambiguously.

  • Orbituary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    WTF? Newsom is a flaming trash heap lit on fire by the PG&E fires he fucking supported.

  • spidermanchild
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Quite a shit opinion piece honestly. It’s a complex issue and the author’s argument of “but it’s 2024 come on” and then quoting the bible is lame.

    The reality is solar is worth next to nothing in CA without storage, community solar is therefore worth next to nothing without storage, and the transmission level connections don’t offer the same advantage that individuals homeowners can achieve with batteries (actual backup), so utility scale comes out ahead on cost. The CPUC made their decision on cost, so unless the author has some actual data to back that up (they don’t, and they even sympathize with that argument), it’s all really just a feels piece. The Ward legislation was flawed in that it set constraints that could not be navigated through the cost modelling structures.

    Other states that haven’t hit the belly of the duck will deal with this eventually and should thank early adopters like CA/TX for bringing down prices for battery storage for when they inevitably run into these issues. As a solar owner without battery in Colorado, I can guarantee you I’m taking more from the utility than I put in, which simply will fail at a certain scale and create inequities. You can argue that this is all fine and the carbon reduction is more important (and I generally agree), but there has to be a line somewhere where we need to agree on least cost solutions when all of the options get us to near net zero in the same timeframe.