Today on AirTalk, we examine how California should fund wildfire liability for utility companies. We also take a look back at the OJ chase and analyze how the media has changed when covering police chases and other major breaking news events; discuss the history of the slavery reparations movement; and more.
With Fire Season Approaching, How Should California Fund Wildfire Liability For Utility Companies?
Summertime means wildfire season in California, and after last year’s devastating Woolsey and Camp Fires, the latter of which destroyed the town of Paradise and is the deadliest wildfire in California history, stakeholders on all sides are exploring ideas for how to make sure that if another wildfire does start because of malfunctioning utility company equipment, that the utility has a financial safety net to prevent bankruptcy and that ratepayers are protected from steep increases in their monthly bills. But questions remain about how much money will be required for this fund, and who’s going to put it there.
Currently, state lawmakers are considering two models for a fund that would backstop utility companies financially in case of a question of liability. One is a so-called “liquidity fund,” which the state says would require $10 billion that would come from continuing a state Department of Water Resources charge to ratepayers that was created during the last energy crisis. The utilities would borrow the money from the state to cover liabilities and pay it back after it is determined how much the utility is liable. The other model would be a second insurance policy for utilities over the next decade and require $40 billion.
Today on AirTalk, guest host Kyle Stokes speaks with stakeholders about how utility companies are preparing for wildfire season and which, if either, of the liability fund models they would prefer to see implemented.
With guest host Kyle Stokes
GUESTS:
Bryan Anderson, political reporter for the Sacramento Bee who covers legislature, the 2020 election, and the DMV; he is also host of the Bee’s “California Nation” podcast; he tweets
Mark Toney, executive director of the consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network (TURN)
Looking Back At The OJ Chase And Its Impact On LA’s Infatuation With Televised Police Pursuits 25 Years Later
On the evening of June 17, 1994, approximately 190 million eyeballs were locked on their television screens watching an unbelievable scene unfold before their eyes -- a white Ford Bronco carrying football star Orenthal James Simpson meandering along Los Angeles’ freeways with a contingent of law enforcement officers from agencies all over L.A. City and County.
So fixated on the chase were viewers across the country that Domino’s Pizza did its best day of sales ever at the time, as millions refused to pull themselves away from their TV screens to make dinner.
While this was certainly not the first-ever televised pursuit, it’s certainly the one that began Los Angeles’ love affair with these kinds of pursuits. It was also a turning point in how major media organizations covered breaking news in real time and the way they devoted resources to doing so.
All of the major cable networks interrupted their regular programming to broadcast the chase, as it was the first time that someone as famous as O.J. was had been accused of committing crime as heinous as he was. An NBA playoff game between the Rockets and Knicks was preempted so that viewers could watch O.J. crawl along SoCal freeways with the majority of Los Angeles’ police force in tow.
A quarter of a century later, the televised police chase is still a fixture of Los Angeles culture though these days, viewers are just as likely to be following along on their Facebook feeds as they are on television. But how did the O.J. chase change how the media covers police chases and other major breaking news events? How did it change how police handle pursuits tactically?
GUESTS:
Patt Morrison, Los Angeles Times columnist and author of several books, most recently “Don’t Stop the Presses!: Truth, Justice, and the American Newspaper” (Angel City Press, April 2018) ; she tweets
Judy Muller, professor emeritus of journalism at the University of Southern California and former ABC News correspondent who covered the O.J. chase as well as his criminal and civil trials; she tweets
Ahead Of House Panel Hearing, We Discuss The History Of The Slavery Reparations Movement
On Wednesday, a House Judiciary Committee will be holding hearings for a bill that would create a commission to study how slavery impacted its descendants, as well as possibilities for redress, including compensation.
The idea of slavery reparations is not new, but it picked up steam in 2014, when Ta-Nehisi Coates made his case for it in The Atlantic. It has since become a topic of discussion for 2020 Democratic candidates, and several, including Warren and Harris, have signaled their support.
But how would reparations be defined, who would qualify and what would be the logistics?
If you’re African American, what do you think about slavery reparations? What kind of compensation would be appropriate? Or do you think it is needed and practically achievable? Weigh in at 866-893-5722.
With guest host Kyle Stokes
GUESTS:
Patricia Cohen, reporter covering the national economy for the New York Times; her recent piece is “What Reparations for Slavery Might Look Like in 2019”
Keith Claybrook, assistant professor of Africana Studies at California State University Long Beach, where his areas of expertise includes the history of the African American reparations movement
William Darity, a professor of public policy at Duke University, where one of his areas of expertise is the economics of reparations