Such is the case in Alameda County, where the Board of Supervisors is considering placing on the March ballot a charter change that would revamp the process for recalling elected officials.

The move has prompted accusations that it’s driven by an attempt to undermine the recall of the county’s controversial new district attorney, Pamela Price. Whatever the motivation, the recall has highlighted that the recall process under the county charter for petition signature-gathering and subsequent countywide balloting is a mess.

It’s unfortunate that the proposed change comes in the middle of the signature-gathering effort for the recall. But, given the timing, it’s uncertain whether the new rules would apply to the current recall effort.

That said, the proposed charter change, with a key clarification, deserves support of the Board of Supervisors and voters countywide.

To their credit, rather than trying to rewrite the charter, the proposed change would simply command the county to follow state rules that apply to counties without their own charters. That makes sense and should eliminate any claims that supervisors are trying to impose a politically driven structure unique to Alameda County.

According to County Counsel Donna Ziegler, of the 14 counties in the state that have their own charter, three have no recall provisions of their own, which means they automatically follow state law, and the rest refer to and incorporate state law to govern their recalls.

Alameda County is the outlier, the only charter county with recall provisions that completely deviate from state law.

The result is that, for recalls, the county relies on nearly century-old charter provisions, some of which are unconstitutional under subsequent court rulings. Other provisions are simply not practical given the current size of the county.

For example, the current county charter allows election officials only 10 days to verify probably more than 100,000 recall petition signatures. The 10-day timeframe might have made sense when the county was much smaller a century ago and the signature requirement was consequently far less. But it’s ridiculous today.

The current charter requires a recall election to take place within 30-45 days of the county Board of Supervisors calling the election. Given the county size, with more than 900,000 voters, that’s an unrealistic timeframe to take care of all the ballot and polling preparations.

Opponents, led by attorney Jason Bezis and the Alameda County Taxpayers’ Association, raise three objections to the proposed charter change.

First, they note that the change would increase the number of valid signatures needed to qualify a recall. That’s true. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Recalls should be reserved for truly egregious behavior, not merely political unhappiness with an elected official.

Moreover, the amount of the increase — from 15% of the vote cast within the county for governor at the last election to 10% of all registered voters — while not insignificant, is not unreasonable. For a countywide election, that would increase the number of signatures needed from about 73,000 to 92,000.

Second, the change would give the county Board of Supervisors the power to appoint a temporary successor who would have to subsequently stand for election, rather than the replacement being chosen in the recall election. While neither system is perfect, we have seen with statewide gubernatorial recalls the mischief and silliness that ensues when the question of recall and replacement are on the same ballot.

Third, Bezis argues the wording of the proposed ballot measure would eliminate the current charter provision that enables voters to recall “appointive” county officials, such as the county administrator, public works director, elections chief or county counsel.

Bezis seems to be correct that the ballot measure wording would eliminate that provision. That’s because the key word in the measure, referring to “appointed” county officers, doesn’t match the term used in the current county charter. The ballot measure would likely be interpreted to only include people appointed to elective office vacancies.

But, if the intention is, as Bezis states, to eliminate the possibility of recalling “appointive” county officials, that would be a good thing. Those appointive officials should only be accountable to the Board of Supervisors. They’re not elected by voters. They should be able to operate professionally without fear of having to fend off recalls, without having to mount political campaigns to keep their nonpolitical jobs.

In sum, the proposed charter change would bring the county recall process into the 21st century, into conformance with the rest of the state, without having to hammer out unique wording that would be subject to claims of political motivation.

Supervisors, after fixing the ambiguity in the proposed ballot measure to protect nonelected government officials from politically charged recalls, should put it before voters. And voters should approve it.

The good news is that for the third time at least 20 brave Republicans combined with Democrats to block Rep. Jim Jordan from becoming the next speaker of the House. The nation could ill-afford an ultraconservative, Donald Trump loyalist and fellow election denier leading the lower chamber of Congress or standing second in line to succeed the president.

The bad news is that the latest rejection of Jordan extended the House dysfunction for an 18^th day on Friday following the unprecedented ouster of Kevin McCarthy on Oct. 3. For 2½ weeks, and counting, the nation has watched this slow-motion trainwreck.

Surely, it wouldn’t last, we thought. But it’s now becoming apparent that this could go on for a long time. It’s already lasted far too long. The government again faces a shutdown if Congress can’t pass a spending bill by Nov. 17, when the short-term budget deal President Biden signed at the end of September expires.

The lack of a leader in the House, and the resulting breakdown of our legislative process and absence of a budget accord, threatens domestic social programs and undermines our role in preserving world order.

Ukraine, the buffer between Russia and the NATO-aligned nations of Europe, is fighting for survival and to preserve its democracy. The Middle East is on the precipice of a multi-faceted conflagration, triggered by Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel countered by an assault on and displacement of the people of Gaza that is becoming a humanitarian crisis.

Biden has shown statesmanlike leadership with unwavering support for Ukraine, backing for Israel coupled with appropriate words of caution to not overreach, and efforts to break the Gaza stalemate to allow at least some aid to reach displaced Palestinians.

There should be no illusions that a lasting peace in the Middle East can be reached in the foreseeable future. But that must be the end goal. Moreover, any hope for the survival of Ukraine or for keeping the Middle East from spiraling out of control requires leadership and money from the United States.

Yet, our own democracy is in crisis. The government of the wealthiest and most powerful nation will shut down in less than a month if there is no budget deal.

Why? Because the Republican Party is in shambles. Hard-right conservatives engineered McCarthy’s ouster with little thought about a succession plan that could succeed. For them, bipartisan compromise is simply off the table. Indeed, it was such compromises by McCarthy, which kept the country from financial breakdown, that led to his ouster.

Even five California members from heavily competitive districts in the Central Valley and southern part of the state — David Valadao, Michelle Steel, Mike Garcia, John Duarte and Ken Calvert — stood by Jordan through three rounds of voting. Loyalty to the Trump wing of the party, and the fear of a primary challenge from the right, are driving a wedge between Republican members of Congress and representation of their diverse constituents.

At least until the next election, this is the band of leaders the nation has been dealt. Unless Republicans can bridge their differences and land on a unity candidate, who has yet to surface, for speaker, the only hope seems to be a deal between moderates of both parties.

That would be a good outcome for Congress and the nation. But, for now, it’s just wishful thinking.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the acts of its agents on Oct. 7, when they crossed the border into Israel with the express intent of killing and kidnapping civilians, were terrorism.

That makes them terrorists.

While some have suggested Hamas’ political role in Gaza means it is not a terrorist organization, it is clearly targeting civilians for political ends, which is the very definition of terrorism.

The danger in using euphemisms such as “militants” to describe terrorists is that it normalizes heinous acts of terrorism and implies that the deliberate targeting of civilians is a military act and that Hamas at large has some other, less-despicable objective.

But let’s be clear: Hamas’ stated goal in its founding charter calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel. The United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada have all formally designated Hamas a terrorist organization. It should not be confused with Palestine or the innocent Palestinians now suffering in Gaza.

Hamas’ terror attack on Israel is clear and indisputable proof that Hamas continues to be committed to its original goal, despite its 2017 charter revisions. The grisly details that have emerged in the days since the attack leave no doubt.

Terrorists stormed Israeli towns, killing and kidnapping anyone they encountered. They recorded the atrocities on body cameras and posted the video to social media sites. Footage compiled by the Israeli government shows civilians shot in bedrooms, bathrooms and yards.

At a music festival celebrating “friends, love and infinite freedom,” terrorists gunned down 260 revelers and took an unknown number of hostages.

In response to all of this, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin described the atrocities committed by Hamas as “worse than what I saw with ISIS.”

Hamas currently holds more than 200 hostages from their Oct. 7 attack on Israel and has promised to begin executing them if Israel retaliates. There is a word to describe the intentional targeting of civilians to political ends, and that word is “terrorism.” Those who commit acts of terrorism are terrorists.

To call these acts or their perpetrators anything other than terrorism and terrorists is not only intellectually disingenuous, it also risks normalizing such acts by obfuscating the essential truth of their nature.

This editorial is being published in all MediaNews Group/Tribune Publishing newspapers.

One of the greatest challenges Bay Area police face centers around the increasing number of interactions with the mentally impaired. For police who are trained extensively on how to establish authority and compel compliant behavior, dealing with people in mental crises often requires tapping a different skill set to avoid tragic consequences.

Unfortunately, San Jose police continue to fall back on their instinct to use force rather than looking for ways to deescalate confrontations.

In 2017, San Jose became the first big-city police department in the country to mandate crisis-intervention training for its officers. The training was a condition of the city’s legal settlement with the family of a 19-year-old woman shot dead by police during a psychiatric breakdown.

As a result, police in the city receive a minimum of 40 hours of training and additional ongoing instruction on how to avoid violent confrontations by using deescalation practices. The department says the program is working — the number of cases involving use of force when officers are sent to mental health calls has decreased dramatically since 2018.

But an in-depth investigation published last weekend by this new organization shows that most of the department’s most serious cases still involve the mentally impaired. It’s not just the numbers that are disturbing. It’s also the encounters, captured on video in 46 incidents, that in some cases show shocking confrontations that could have and should have been deescalated.

Of 108 cases from 2014-21 in which San Jose police caused “great bodily injury,” nearly three-quarters involved people believed to be mentally ill or intoxicated. Those 108 cases resulted in police killing 25 people, 20 of whom were mentally ill or intoxicated.

The city had dragged its feet on enabling public scrutiny of these cases. The records used in our investigation were released under California’s transparency laws and the terms of a 2020 settlement of our lawsuit against the city.

To be sure, there are some bright spots in the data, most notably that the total number of cases that involved lethal force declined over time. But there continues to be a troubling number of cases of police violence involving the mentally impaired.

Cases like the one that led to the January 2018 fatal shooting of Tommy Nguyen. Or the May 2021 case of William Wallace, whom an officer tried to stop for jaywalking on a deserted street in the middle of the night.

Or the February 2020 case of Sylvester Taylor Gaulden, who was wrapped in a blanket carrying what appeared to be a pillow, apparently undergoing a mental health crisis. Within about 10 seconds of finding Gaulden on a quiet side street, an officer was hitting him with a baton, and another officer was shooting him with a 40 mm beanbag launcher.

Equally disturbing were the claims in one of the officer’s reports that Gaulden was starting to charge at him and had shown “multiple pre-assaultive behaviors.” The video simply doesn’t support that.

We understand what a tough job policing can be. But it’s in those moments of crisis that officers demonstrate whether they can properly balance the need for restraint with the instinct to use force.

However much the San Jose Police Department wants to tout the success of its crisis intervention training, the video evidence shows that it still has a long way to go.

Then hire independent experts to evaluate the benefits and costs — and decide whether Santa Clara County’s largest infrastructure project is worth the new $12.2 billion price tag.

In just three years, the cost estimate for the six-mile, four-station, mostly underground extension has more than doubled, and the completion date has been kicked back a decade from 2026 to 2036.

The price of the project — stretching from the Berryessa/North San Jose stop through downtown San Jose and up to Santa Clara — increased from $5.6 billion in 2020 to $6.9 billion later that year, $9.1 billion in 2021, $9.3 billion in 2022 and then the $12.2 billion this past week.

It’s time for a fresh look at the project and alternatives that might provide mass transit or other environmentally friendly commuter options more cost-effectively. Perhaps the extension will still prove to be a wise investment. Or perhaps not.

Federal, state and county taxpayers all have a financial stake in this project. Elected leaders at each level should demand a truly independent review, as should the local leaders who sit on the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which oversees the project.

Prior assumptions about rider demand that were used as a justification for the extension should be reexamined. Santa Clara County’s population has declined since 2020; state projections show it won’t recover for another decade and will increase only 10% by 2060. Commute patterns have been upended as more people work from home. Office vacancy rates have reached historic highs. And the massive Google campus planned for San Jose has been placed on indefinite hold.

Consideration should also be given to whether the last leg of the four-station extension — from Diridon Station in San Jose to Santa Clara — should be eliminated. Even respected public transit advocates have complained that section is duplicative of Caltrain service.

At the same time, VTA financial projections should be scrutinized. Not just because the numbers keep changing but also because of VTA’s history of deceit that calls into question whether the agency can now be trusted.

The agency has at different times tried to hide the true cost of the extension from the public, slammed federal estimates and then later conceded they were right, and tried to raid more than its fair share of county sales tax money.

Now, after announcing this past week the latest $2.9 billion cost-estimate increase, authority officials withheld a cost breakdown for the contributing factors.

The transit authority blames escalating construction costs, the new longer projections of the time it will take to build the project, and last year’s decision to increase the size of the tunnel that will house underground tracks and stations.

The last item is particularly perplexing because, when that decision was made to change the tunnel size, VTA officials said it would save money because it would enable side-by-side platforms that would be less complicated to build than the prior plan to stack them vertically.

It’s that sort of public flip-flopping and lack of transparency, combined with the past disingenuous denials about increases, that raise questions about the credibility of the authority’s forecasts and analyses. It’s why independent review is so critical before embarking on this hugely costly taxpayer-funded project.

Authority officials claim they can get the federal government to cover 49% of the cost — although the feds have not approved the funding. And they claim that they can tap an additional $1.4 billion from the county’s 2016 voter-approved transportation sales tax increase.

That, they say, is based in part on projections of greater sales tax revenues than previously thought. But asked to provide the analysis to support those projections, the transit authority refused, saying the firm that prepared the numbers considers them proprietary. That’s unacceptable secrecy when taxpayers are being asked to fork over billions of dollars.

There are simply too many unanswered questions about the viability of the project and the accuracy and reliability of the authority’s numbers and analysis. As we said in editorials in 2021 and 2022, the San Jose BART extension should be subjected to a complete independent review. After the latest shocking cost increases, that analysis is needed more than ever.

This time the shooting is in Martinez. Video shows officers firing at a car as it drives away. One man, Tommy Wilson Jr., 22, was critically injured but is recovering. He had been shot twice in the back. His brother, Tahmon Wilson, 20, is dead. He had been shot in the back of the head.

It’s hard to understand how firing into a moving vehicle as suspects are trying to flee can be justified. It’s hard to understand how it’s OK for an officer to shoot someone from behind. That’s why an independent investigation is so badly needed.

Hours after the killings, Bonta announced that his office would conduct a probe as required by state law. The law stems from legislation that Bonta, when he was an assemblymember, and more than 40 other legislators introduced just three weeks after a Minneapolis officer murdered George Floyd.

Jumping on the police accountability bandwagon was good politics in that moment in 2020. But three years later, Bonta has been pathetically slow to carry out the legal mandate of the law he championed. The delays must stop.

Assembly Bill 1506 requires his office to investigate fatal police shootings of unarmed civilians. In July 2021, Bonta announced that 27 special agents and six supervisory agents would begin conducting investigations of an expected 40-50 police shootings each year.

“One of the most important tasks ahead for public safety and our society is building and maintaining trust between our communities and law enforcement,” Bonta said in a press statement. “Impartial, fair investigations and independent reviews of officer-involved shootings are one essential component for achieving that trust.”

That was less than three months after Bonta had been appointed attorney general to fill the post left by Xavier Becerra’s departure for Washington to become President Biden’s health secretary. That was back when Bonta was gearing up for the 2022 election for a full four-year term.

Since then, Bonta and his office have dropped the ball. Their stated goal is to complete the investigations within one year. It hasn’t come close. The office has finished just three investigations, all Southern California cases. It’s been about five months since the last report was issued.

The delay leaves families without resolution about the killings of their kin. The pending investigations have been used by some police agencies as justification for withholding release of records and videos of shootings. Civil lawsuits by family members have been delayed. A sheriff’s deputy who fired the fatal shot in one case is back on patrol.

The official explanation for the delays in Bonta’s office is that its priority is “fair, thorough, complete and comprehensive” investigations. That’s a good goal. But at a certain point the delays undermine justice.

Officials also say the office hasn’t been provided with the full funding it has sought to do the job. But they didn’t readily have numbers to support the claim. Besides, it’s hard to understand how, with a staff of 33 people and an annual caseload that turned out to be only about half of what was originally forecast, there have been almost no results so far.

Unfortunately, when it comes to police accountability, Bonta seems unwilling to walk the talk. He has managed to turn a program that was supposed to ensure police accountability into yet another shield against transparency.

It’s shameful.

The oldest member of the U.S. Senate, California’s first woman elected to the upper house of Congress, and the longest-tenured female senator in American history, Feinstein died Thursday night at her home in the nation’s capital. She was 90.

For too many with only short-term memories, she will be remembered for her refusal to resign her Senate seat as her health failed and her mental acuity declined. But that narrow focus on the final few years of her life misses the importance of her political career that spanned more than half a century.

Feinstein was not a political ideologue. She was a trailblazer and great leader respectful of the state’s diverse electorate and loathe to get too far ahead of it. It’s a legacy that Gov. Gavin Newsom should respect as he appoints her successor.

Feinstein’s political career began with her election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1969. She was a critically needed calming influence on her home city as she succeeded Mayor George Moscone in 1978 after he and Supervisor Harvey Milk were killed in City Hall.

Feinstein’s election to the U.S. Senate in the year of the woman, 1992, and her legislative accomplishments during her three decades in Congress demonstrated the wisdom of her politically measured approach.

On many issues, Feinstein was a liberal: She was the author of a national assault weapons ban that lasted a decade, a supporter of abortion rights, author of the California Desert Protection Act, an advocate for fuel-efficient vehicle standards and a fierce critic of the CIA’s use of torture.

But Feinstein was also a pragmatist who eschewed party lines to represent the core centrism of the voters of her state. She favored stiffer security at the border and punishment for those who illegally employed migrants. And she angered environmentalists, including fellow California Sen. Barbara Boxer, with her support for Central Valley agricultural water interests.

On some issues, such as her original opposition to same-sex marriage and support of the death penalty, she would eventually reverse course. The decision she said she regretted the most was her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war.

To be sure, in the era of divided government, she was a reliable Democratic vote in the Senate — as she should have been. But she did so without flaunting her party affiliation.

During her 2018 reelection campaign, Feinstein came under sharp criticism from Democrats for urging voters to have “patience” with then-President Donald Trump. It was a tactical position, rather than any indication of support for the president’s positions. She recognized that little would be accomplished legislatively by merely railing against him.

It’s the sort of tempered political approach Newsom should honor as he picks someone to serve the remaining 1¼  years of her term. The governor, who has indicated he plans to select a Black woman for the job, has wisely said that he wants to make an “interim appointment.”

In other words, he doesn’t want to tip the scales in favor of any of the 2024-election candidates vying to fill the seat for the following six years. That has angered Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, a Black woman who has struggled to gain statewide support as she unabashedly runs as the hard-left candidate in race.

What Lee misses and Newsom seems to appreciate is that no candidate has an entitlement to the six-year term, and the winner should emerge through the statewide electoral process. It’s the sort of respect for the voters that Feinstein would have appreciated.

The swearing in Monday of Anna Gomez as the fifth FCC commissioner breaks the agency’s 2-2 deadlock on issues, allowing chair Jessica Rosenworcel to take steps to restore net neutrality rules that were rescinded under then-President Donald Trump.

Rosenworcel on Tuesday announced that she will move to reverse the rules that bar internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic, recreating an open internet that is essential for innovation and economic growth and fostering the next generation of tech entrepreneurs. It’s a concept backed by tech pioneers such as Tim Berners-Lee and Vincent Cerf since the beginning days of the internet. They believed that the future of innovation, freedom of speech and democracy in America depends on strong, enforceable net neutrality rules.

The American people agree. Polls show that net neutrality is supported by 75% of the population. That includes President Biden, who  made restoring net neutrality a key element of his campaign.

Biden nominated Gigi Sohn to replace Commissioner Ajit Pai, who resigned the day Trump left office. But Senate Republicans blocked Sohn’s confirmation for more than two years, claiming that her “radical” views disqualified her. Sohn’s so-called radical views consisted of her calling Fox News “state-run propaganda” during the Trump administration and her service as an Electronic Frontier Foundation board member, which defends digital privacy, free speech and innovation. Senate Republicans’ real problem with Sohn was her position as a top aide to former FCC Chair Tom Wheeler, who was rightly credited with installing the toughest net neutrality laws in U.S. history.

Biden withdrew Sohn’s nomination in May and then nominated Gomez, a telecommunications attorney who had worked for the FCC in several positions for 12 years. She had also been a vice president for federal and state government affairs for Sprint Nextel.

The current FCC rules allow broadband providers such as Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Comcast a free rein that allows them to rake in billions while serving as kingmakers. They have the power to pick winners and losers online by charging content providers and users higher rates for faster service. Pai argued that would allow the broadband powers to hire more people, invest in network improvements, making for a “better, cheaper” internet. That didn’t happen. If it had, Biden wouldn’t have had to announce on June 26 a plan to invest more than $40 billion to deliver high-speed internet in places where there’s either no service or service is too slow.

Pai’s rescinding of net neutrality laws left a checkerboard of rules and regulations by various states across the nation.

Rosenworcel reportedly wants the FCC to vote in October on new net neutrality laws. Creating a level playing field for the tech industry’s newest wave of entrepreneurs can’t happen too soon.

Gov. Gavin Newsom should veto AB 316, which would ban self-driving trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds from operating on public roads without a human driver until 2029. The Legislature should instead designate the state Department of Motor Vehicles and other stage agencies with the necessary expertise to determine when self-driving trucks are safe to transport products in California.

Under the legislation, the DMV would not be able to issue permits for self-driving trucks until after five years of testing or Jan. 2020, whichever comes later. That means the earliest California could allow autonomous trucks to operate without a human driver would be 2030.

Beyond the safety issue, the labor-dominated Legislature is concerned about the potential for self-driving trucks replacing driving jobs. Teamsters officials say there are about 200,000 commercial truck drivers in California. What the labor leaders don’t say is how many jobs the autonomous driving industry will create.  A 2022 study released by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group found that the impact of automated trucking in California would increase the state’s economy by upwards of $6.5 billion or more and that, over the long haul, would not prompt mass driver layoffs.

The Associated Press reports that a San Diego-based self-driving truck company, TuSimple, partnered with the U.S. Postal Service this spring to test autonomous technology on the 1,000-mile route between Phoenix and Dallas. The two-week pilot program had a driver and engineer on board for five test runs, which were completed without incident. TuSimple officials say they have 15 contracts with shipping companies in Arizona.

The DMV also notes that testing of self-driving vehicles since 2014 over nearly 20 million miles has yet to lead to any fatalities. But that doesn’t mean self-driving trucks should be granted permits to operate.

On Aug. 10, the California Public Utilities Commission ignored non-fatality safety concerns and voted to allow Cruise and Waymo to expand their robotaxi services to 24 hours a day throughout San Francisco.

The next day, 10 robotaxis abruptly stopped and jammed traffic for 15 minutes in the city’s popular North Beach neighborhood. Then, on Aug. 17,  a driverless Cruise vehicle collided with a fire truck in a San Francisco intersection, injuring a passenger. It’s clear that substantially more testing is necessary before turning loose autonomous vehicles in California.

Self-driving trucks pose considerably more risk than cars. The governor, the Legislature and state agencies should take a cautious approach to allowing them on the road while working to promote the innovative technology.

Since 2018, the utility’s average bill for the typical residential customer who received gas and electric services has skyrocketed by 42%, from $169.73 a month to $240.73 a month. That compares to the overall Bay Area inflation rate over the last five years of 13.5%, or 2.7% a year.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the two-time convicted felon is now proposing that it be allowed to harvest even higher revenues from its customers.

PG&E had the temerity to ask the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to increase its revenue in 2023 by a whopping $3.2 billion, or 26%.

The PUC, which has a long history of cozying up to PG&E, must not allow PG&E to further gouge its 16 million customers, not when they already pay some of the highest utility rates in the nation.

The PUC should instead consider the two alternative proposals it issued last week — one crafted by PUC Commissioner John Reynolds and a second offered by a PUC administrative law judge.

Reynolds’ plan would allow PG&E to collect a $1.1 billion increase in revenue, or 9% more than what the utility collected in 2022. That would amount to a $24 monthly increase in PG&E customers’ bill, according to The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer group that monitors PG&E.

The utility would rake in $1.6 billion in 2023 under the other alternate plan, which TURN officials said would add $28 a month to customers’ bills.

PG&E argues that it needs the money to improve the safety, efficiency and reliability of its gas and electric systems. The utility also said the bulk of the money would go toward burying its power lines underground in areas that are highly susceptible to wildfires. But what the utility doesn’t say is that its profits aren’t determined by how much energy they sell but by how much they invest in infrastructure. PG&E doesn’t generate profits when it trims trees and maintains its power lines. But it does, for example, when it buries new powerlines underground. State regulators guarantee a 10% profit margin for those investments, meaning PG&E can charge its customers an additional 10 cents in profits for shareholders for every dollar the utility spends on building infrastructure.

TURN executive director Mark Toney says that it would be significantly cheaper for PG&E to insulate its power lines, rather than bury them underground, as a way to protect against catastrophic wildfires. The two proposals would have PG&E insulate 1,800 miles of power lines and bury 200 miles of power lines at a cost of $2.1 billion. PG&E proposes insulating 320 miles and burying 2,000 miles of power lines at a cost of $5.9 billion.

The PUC is scheduled to make a final decision on PG&E’s rate hikes sometime in November.

It’s the PUC’s job to make sure PG&E keeps its priorities straight. The PUC must not prioritize PG&E profits over California customers’ best interests.