Thread by @latimes

The potential benefits of a public takeover of PG&E are significant.

But there's no guarantee a government entity could provide safer, cleaner or cheaper electricity than the reviled company it would replace. latimes.com/environment/st…

Californians have grown increasingly disenchanted with PG&E since 2010, when one of the company's gas pipelines exploded in San Bruno, killing 8 people.

More recently, the company's transmission lines ignited several wildfires. 📸: KTLA latimes.com/environment/st…

Public pressure for some kind of government action has only grown since October, when PG&E intentionally shut off power to millions of people in an effort to prevent more fires. latimes.com/environment/st…

Nobody has ever transferred a utility as large as PG&E from private to public ownership.

But a growing number of state and local lawmakers are calling for a public takeover of the sprawling company, which provides power for 16 million people. 📸: AP latimes.com/environment/st…

Proponents say a publicly owned PG&E would offer lower rates because it wouldn't have to generate profits for shareholders, and would be more responsive to customers and elected officials.

But it may not be that simple. latimes.com/environment/st…

Statewide, homes served by publicly owned utilities pay less for electricity than homes served by investor-owned utilities.

Still, experts caution this might not necessarily be the case in the event of a public takeover of PG&E.
latimes.com/environment/st…

Do you have questions about the possibility of a public takeover of PG&E?

Let us know in the story's comment section: latimes.com/environment/st…