SB 875 — a bill that would have smoothed the path for SF to buy PG&E's local power lines and run its own municipal utility — just got killed in a State Senate committee. The dream of joining cities like Santa Clara and Los Angeles, which operate their own power systems with lower rates and local reinvestment, is dead again. For now.

Let's be clear about what's happening here. San Francisco residents are paying some of the highest electricity rates in the country to a company with a track record of deadly negligence, catastrophic wildfires, and a felony conviction. The city wants to take control of its own infrastructure — a fundamentally conservative, self-determination kind of move — and the state legislature won't let it.

Why? Follow the incentives. PG&E has a long history of donating generously to state lawmakers. As one frustrated SF resident put it bluntly: "Didn't they donate to some of these state senators? Like, that's wild." Wild indeed.

There's also the subsidy question that nobody in Sacramento wants to talk about honestly. Right now, SF ratepayers are effectively subsidizing PG&E's expensive infrastructure work in rural and exurban areas. As one local pointed out, residents of Sacramento, LA, San Diego, and Santa Clara aren't shouldering that burden — only those stuck in PG&E's territory are. That's not a market. That's a hostage situation.

Look, there are legitimate debates about how to fund rural electrification. But the answer shouldn't be "trap San Francisco in a monopoly relationship with a convicted felon of a utility company." If the state wants urban ratepayers subsidizing rural infrastructure, make it a transparent statewide program funded by all taxpayers — don't just block one city from exercising basic fiscal autonomy.

Municipalization isn't some progressive fever dream. It's local control over local infrastructure, funded by local ratepayers who'd see lower bills and better service. It's the kind of thing that should appeal to anyone who believes communities deserve a say in how their money gets spent.

Instead, we get Sacramento picking PG&E's shareholders over SF's residents. Again.

One local's suggestion? "Just do it. Make the state sue us." Honestly? At this point, the frustration is hard to argue with.