LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It also looks like PG&E's blackouts didn't actually prevent fires.

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Kincade-Fire-sends-PG-E-stock-reeling-could-go-14562445.php

This company, ugh.

---

That fire would have been prevented if they turned off power 20 minutes earlier on that line.

So are you arguing for larger scale outages or earlier outages? I am not sure what the claim is.

---

That they don't seem to know where or when to shut down the lines anyway. Despite the PSPS, still a fire. Is it worth it for everyone to lose power too?

---

Well that's the choice, isn't it. Try and not cause a fire, or just DGAF and let that ***** burn so I can watch TV.

Maybe we should vote. More people live where wildfire is zero concern, so we could probably get the win.

---

I mean, safety is certainly a concern, but having power out in a heavily populated area for a long period is ALSO a safety hazard. Doesn't seem like PG&E has demonstrated they can manage these shutoffs for maximum efficiency (not even close really) or even prevent fires caused by their own lines, so what are we gaining here?

I acknowledge that it's possible the shutoffs are preventing even worse disasters, but all of PG&E's screwups are just bolstering the narrative that this is more about protecting themselves from liability than actual public safety.

sycasey said:

---

I acknowledge that it's possible the shutoffs are preventing even worse disasters, but all of PG&E's screwups are just bolstering the narrative that this is more about protecting themselves from liability than actual public safety.

---

Looks like real competition, effective government regulation or expensive law suits are needed

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I acknowledge that it's possible the shutoffs are preventing even worse disasters, but all of PG&E's screwups are just bolstering the narrative that this is more about protecting themselves from liability than actual public safety.

---

Looks like real competition, effective government regulation or expensive law suits are needed

---

Only the middle path seems to make sense to me. More lawsuits just encourage more shutoffs, and I'm not sure how you have competition for an electric grid.

Another fire has started in Lafayette from a downed power line. That doesn't happen with buried lines.

In any case, the CPUC needs to be reformed and overhauled. Being the lap dog of corporate utilities is how we got to the current place. Need real oversight and real leadership to figure out energy plans for the future. It's real oversight, real long term policy or break up PG&E. Actually probably have to do both if you want a real, lasting and long term solution. PG&E and shut offs are simply bandaid reactions on long delayed maintenance and lawsuit avoidance. Thing are never going to get better with this set up.

So basically, the power might be off all the way until Friday. This is insanity. The government needs to step in.

Power just on at San Bruno. No one inspected lines here

I would say that in my neighborhood the power shut off avoided significant fires. Several downed trees broke through power lines through the weekend, including last night. There were at least three crushed cars in a five block radius and streets were closed while PG&E came around and cleared the streets of trees and corrected power lines.

It makes sense to bury power lines of course. Through the state that is probably a 100 billion dollar job over 10 years. All that in a time where people are sucking up all of the contractors in the state because they are rebuilding fire areas.

This is a total cluster. Of course PG&E Shipley have been doing this over the past 29 years ever since the Oakland hills fires. But we have the highest rates in the country because we also have to have green power, limited nuclear, etc. PUC is not willing to raise rates, workers have significant salaries and negotiated benefits, etc. this will become a state entity and then we will see how good it all is.

Oski87 said:

---

I would say that in my neighborhood the power shut off avoided significant fires. Several downed trees broke through power lines through the weekend, including last night. There were at least three crushed cars in a five block radius and streets were closed while PG&E came around and cleared the streets of trees and corrected power lines.

It makes sense to bury power lines of course. Through the state that is probably a 100 billion dollar job over 10 years. All that in a time where people are sucking up all of the contractors in the state because they are rebuilding fire areas.

This is a total cluster. Of course PG&E Shipley have been doing this over the past 29 years ever since the Oakland hills fires. But we have the highest rates in the country because we also have to have green power, limited nuclear, etc. PUC is not willing to raise rates, workers have significant salaries and negotiated benefits, etc. this will become a state entity and then we will see how good it all is.

---

Trees breaking power lines doesn't necessarily cause a fire. A few years back there was a terrible wind storm in my city and lots of trees fell onto wires, transformers exploded, and power lines came down. We lost power for days. However, not a single fire started. If that was the case there would be huge fires in places with big storms every year like Florida. Don't get me wrong. Fires can start that way. However, to say that shutting the power off "avoided significant fires" seems like a leap.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) announced Monday that it's launching a formal investigation into PG&E's public safety power shutoffs this year.

https://abc7news.com/society/cpuc-opening-investigation-into-public-safety-power-shutoffs/5654369/

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It also looks like PG&E's blackouts didn't actually prevent fires.

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Kincade-Fire-sends-PG-E-stock-reeling-could-go-14562445.php

This company, ugh.

---

That fire would have been prevented if they turned off power 20 minutes earlier on that line.

So are you arguing for larger scale outages or earlier outages? I am not sure what the claim is.

---

That they don't seem to know where or when to shut down the lines anyway. Despite the PSPS, still a fire. Is it worth it for everyone to lose power too?

---

Well that's the choice, isn't it. Try and not cause a fire, or just DGAF and let that ***** burn so I can watch TV.

Maybe we should vote. More people live where wildfire is zero concern, so we could probably get the win.

---

I mean, safety is certainly a concern, but having power out in a heavily populated area for a long period is ALSO a safety hazard. Doesn't seem like PG&E has demonstrated they can manage these shutoffs for maximum efficiency (not even close really) or even prevent fires caused by their own lines, so what are we gaining here?

I acknowledge that it's possible the shutoffs are preventing even worse disasters, but all of PG&E's screwups are just bolstering the narrative that this is more about protecting themselves from liability than actual public safety.

---

I have been saying its to protect themselves for a couple years now. OBVIOUSLY.

And TBH, the way the law works, it absolutely should, because in the end, it is also protecting rate payers, etc, from California's absurd laws.

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It also looks like PG&E's blackouts didn't actually prevent fires.

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Kincade-Fire-sends-PG-E-stock-reeling-could-go-14562445.php

This company, ugh.

---

That fire would have been prevented if they turned off power 20 minutes earlier on that line.

So are you arguing for larger scale outages or earlier outages? I am not sure what the claim is.

---

That they don't seem to know where or when to shut down the lines anyway. Despite the PSPS, still a fire. Is it worth it for everyone to lose power too?

---

Well that's the choice, isn't it. Try and not cause a fire, or just DGAF and let that ***** burn so I can watch TV.

Maybe we should vote. More people live where wildfire is zero concern, so we could probably get the win.

---

I mean, safety is certainly a concern, but having power out in a heavily populated area for a long period is ALSO a safety hazard. Doesn't seem like PG&E has demonstrated they can manage these shutoffs for maximum efficiency (not even close really) or even prevent fires caused by their own lines, so what are we gaining here?

I acknowledge that it's possible the shutoffs are preventing even worse disasters, but all of PG&E's screwups are just bolstering the narrative that this is more about protecting themselves from liability than actual public safety.

---

I have been saying its to protect themselves for a couple years now. OBVIOUSLY.

And TBH, the way the law works, it absolutely should, because in the end, it is also protecting rate payers, etc, from California's absurd laws.

---

If they want to change the liability laws, that's fine . . . but that's going to have to come with increased government regulation/oversight, if not outright takeover. Something needs to act as a counterweight to prioritize the public interest.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I acknowledge that it's possible the shutoffs are preventing even worse disasters, but all of PG&E's screwups are just bolstering the narrative that this is more about protecting themselves from liability than actual public safety.

---

Looks like real competition, effective government regulation or expensive law suits are needed

---

1. Real competition may work if the laws were changed.
2. Government regulation wouldnt work unless the laws were changed.
3. Law suits would just force another entity (possibly the state) to shut off power instead. Unless the laws were changed.


I mean you have a perfect storm of stupidity in California.

A government provided monopoly. A government that prevents you from using defoliant to protect your lines. A government that says everything is your liability, fault or no fault. A commission to oversee a utility that is asleep on the job and on the take. A government that diverts hundreds of millions of dollars a year away from maintaining infrastructure into subsidizing solar panels and building Green power plants. A utility removing redundancies to save on maintenance costs (so we cant shut off power to X line while keeping Y city energized). A utility that doesnt invest in the latest circuit monitoring. Absurdly poor forest management.

The list goes on.

Of course SF and SJ want to take over their tiny little part of the grid, but a "PG&E" type utility will exist in California, and I dont think anyone would want to run it. I cant imagine a private company looking at this and wanting to buy it, and I certainly dont think the public is in any hurry to hold the bag on the mess they created.

Gavin is out crying about two things the Government has spent decades creating: a utility snafu and a fuel price snafu. Saying PG&E is a corporate greed and capitalism is just ignorant. It is a public monopoly created, protected and has its rules set by the government. It is the opposite of capitalism. The fuel price investigation is the same asinine nonsense. Raise taxes, waste the revenue, raise taxes again, demand special blends, and then wonder why the price went up.

But, I am a strong believer in effective government regulation. I just dont believe California has it in its DNA to provide effective regulation when feel good virtue signaling, and then blaming everyone but yourself is so popular.

dimitrig said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

I would say that in my neighborhood the power shut off avoided significant fires. Several downed trees broke through power lines through the weekend, including last night. There were at least three crushed cars in a five block radius and streets were closed while PG&E came around and cleared the streets of trees and corrected power lines.

It makes sense to bury power lines of course. Through the state that is probably a 100 billion dollar job over 10 years. All that in a time where people are sucking up all of the contractors in the state because they are rebuilding fire areas.

This is a total cluster. Of course PG&E Shipley have been doing this over the past 29 years ever since the Oakland hills fires. But we have the highest rates in the country because we also have to have green power, limited nuclear, etc. PUC is not willing to raise rates, workers have significant salaries and negotiated benefits, etc. this will become a state entity and then we will see how good it all is.

---

Trees breaking power lines doesn't necessarily cause a fire. A few years back there was a terrible wind storm in my city and lots of trees fell onto wires, transformers exploded, and power lines came down. We lost power for days. However, not a single fire started. If that was the case there would be huge fires in places with big storms every year like Florida. Don't get me wrong. Fires can start that way. However, to say that shutting the power off "avoided significant fires" seems like a leap.

---

Power lines starting fires seems like a leap to you?

Just another day in Paradise, I guess.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I acknowledge that it's possible the shutoffs are preventing even worse disasters, but all of PG&E's screwups are just bolstering the narrative that this is more about protecting themselves from liability than actual public safety.

---

Looks like real competition, effective government regulation or expensive law suits are needed

---

Only the middle path seems to make sense to me. More lawsuits just encourage more shutoffs, and I'm not sure how you have competition for an electric grid.

---

Everyone builds their own grid.

LunchTime said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

I would say that in my neighborhood the power shut off avoided significant fires. Several downed trees broke through power lines through the weekend, including last night. There were at least three crushed cars in a five block radius and streets were closed while PG&E came around and cleared the streets of trees and corrected power lines.

It makes sense to bury power lines of course. Through the state that is probably a 100 billion dollar job over 10 years. All that in a time where people are sucking up all of the contractors in the state because they are rebuilding fire areas.

This is a total cluster. Of course PG&E Shipley have been doing this over the past 29 years ever since the Oakland hills fires. But we have the highest rates in the country because we also have to have green power, limited nuclear, etc. PUC is not willing to raise rates, workers have significant salaries and negotiated benefits, etc. this will become a state entity and then we will see how good it all is.

---

Trees breaking power lines doesn't necessarily cause a fire. A few years back there was a terrible wind storm in my city and lots of trees fell onto wires, transformers exploded, and power lines came down. We lost power for days. However, not a single fire started. If that was the case there would be huge fires in places with big storms every year like Florida. Don't get me wrong. Fires can start that way. However, to say that shutting the power off "avoided significant fires" seems like a leap.

---

Power lines starting fires seems like a leap to you?

Just another day in Paradise, I guess.

---

Of course power lines can start fires. I said that: "Fires can start that way." I just do not think it is a given that the "power shut off avoided significant fires."

Here we go again!