January 30, 2019

No Image

Federal Judge Blasts PG&E's Commitment To California Wildfire Safety

A federal judge in California blasted utility giant Pacific Gas and Electric Co. on Wednesday, accusing the beleaguered company of putting profits before customer safety and not doing enough to keep trees away from its power lines, thus increasing the risk of wildfires.

“Safety is not your number one thing,” said U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in a probation hearing in San Francisco. The hearing came one day after the utility had filed for bankruptcy protection in the face of billions of dollars in potential liabilities stemming from two seasons of devastating wildfires.

Alsup is scrutinizing the utility company’s criminal convictions for violating pipeline safety laws after the massive 2010 gas explosion that killed eight people and incinerated a neighborhood in San Bruno, Calif., just south of San Francisco.

An investigation is underway to determine what role PG&E’s power lines may have played in igniting last year’s deadly Camp Fire that killed at least 86 people and destroyed much of the Northern California town of Paradise.

“To my mind, there’s a very clear-cut pattern here: that PG&E is starting these fires,” Alsup said. “What do we do? Does the judge just turn a blind eye and say, ‘PG&E continue your business as usual. Kill more people by starting more fires.’ “

The judge was not done. He said he is concerned about the possibility of more wildfires in 2019.

“Will we be seeing headlines: ‘PG&E has done it again?'” asked Alsup. “Started another fire and some other town burned down because you didn’t turn the power off or you didn’t cut the trees?”

However, the judge did not order the company to comply immediately with a series of proposals he made requiring it to inspect its entire power grid and “remove or trim all tress that could fall onto its power lines.” Alsup also suggested that PG&E temporarily shut off power in some circumstances to avoid igniting fires. The company responded saying the judge’s safety plan was not feasible and could cost as much as $150 billion.

The judge said he wants to see a wildfire mitigation plan the company is expected to send to state regulators next month.

In Wednesday’s hearing, PG&E attorney Kevin Orsini said the company is taking steps to reduce the wildfire danger, but that it would not be able to find enough qualified tree trimmers to do all the work the judge has proposed.

“The people don’t exist,” said Orsini.

In a statement issued after the hearing, the company said it “shares the court’s commitment to safety and agrees with the urgency that we all have to work together to reduce the risk of wildfire throughout Northern and Central California.”

“We look forward to working with the court and probation on how we might enhance our communication efforts,” it added.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Several Democrats Eyeing A Presidential Run Embrace 'Medicare-For-All'

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., at an Oakland, Calif., campaign rally this week. Harris says she backs a single-payer health system, but she hasn’t yet offered details on how she would finance that plan.

Mason Trinca/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Mason Trinca/Getty Images

“Medicare-for-all,” once widely considered a fringe proposal for providing health care in the U.S., is getting more popular. Several Democratic presidential hopefuls are getting behind the idea.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., endorsed the approach Monday in a CNN town hall-style event, saying her aim would be to eliminate all private insurance.

“Who of us has not had that situation, where you’ve got to wait for approval and the doctor says, well, ‘I don’t know if your insurance company is going to cover this,’ ” Harris said. “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.”

Harris was a co-sponsor of a 2017 bill written by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would have created a national, single-payer health system, eliminating the private insurance system.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., both presidential hopefuls, also co-sponsored the Sanders bill.

Everyone would get a Medicare card and doctors would have to sign annual agreements to participate.

The major questions the candidates face is how the government would pay for it.

Total spending on health care in the U.S. was about $3.5 trillion in 2017 and is forecast to rise to $5.7 trillion in 2026, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The federal government already pays for a lot of that through Medicare, Medicaid, military health care and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Much of the rest is through employer health insurance plans and individual health insurance and payments by patients.

Sanders laid out several options to pay for his proposal, including increasing taxes on employers who would no longer be paying insurance premiums; increasing individual income taxes; and boosting taxes on the wealthy.

Harris didn’t say, in the town hall-style meeting, how she would pay for the program. And her Senate office didn’t respond to an email asking whether she has a funding proposal.

Warren has proposed a 2 percent tax on the wealth of an individual that’s above $50 million and 3 percent on wealth of more than $1 billion.

The mechanism for paying for “Medicare-for-all” can make the politics muddy.

A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests that 56 percent of people in the U.S. like the idea overall.

But when people heard more details, those numbers changed.

When the question included the idea that “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right, its support rose to 71 percent. But when it said people would have to pay more taxes, the popularity plummeted to 37 percent.

That dynamic has created an opening for potential centrist candidates to stake out a middle road.

Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, who has said he is considering a presidential run, told CBS reporters that Harris’ proposal to eliminate the health insurance industry is “not American.” He also called proposed tax increases on the wealthy “punitive.”

Mike Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York and founder of Bloomberg LP, who is also considering a run, said in New Hampshire Tuesday that he, too, opposed the idea.

“To replace the entire private system where companies provide health care for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time,” he told workers at a factory he was visiting.

Bloomberg has said he supports opening Medicare to people who don’t have coverage through their employers.

The health insurance industry is already gearing up to oppose any “Medicare-for-all” proposals, according to The Intercept, an investigative news website.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)