CannonBlast said:
bearister said:
I understand PG&E's position in the matter but the corporate conspiracy theorist in me says that PG&E ate a $h@it sandwich because failure to maintain its equipment was linked to fires and that PG&E knows GD well which equipment needs remediation but by doing these shutdowns two goals are accomplished:
1. By shutting down the power they can save money on massive repairs; and
2. They are flipping a large bird to the public while screaming, "WHOSE YOUR DADDY!"
I remember a standup comic in the 1980's at The Punchline in SF posing the question, "What does PG&E stand for?" and providing the answer: "Pr@icks Grabbing Everything."
I work for another utility in California and I'm deeply involved with the issue of wildfire mitigation.
1. Absolutely false -- all utilities are upgrading the grid to be more resilient to wildfires and the new normal of having wildfires year-round. There is no incentive for utilities to cut corners on this because California IOUs make a profit by getting a return on capital investment. So upgrading infrastructure would actually be good for shareholders. Money is not made off the sale of electricity.
2. I can't speak for PG&E, but the dangers of powerlines being the ignition point for wildfires is REAL. Most of us live in the communities we serve. Many of us know someone that has lost a family member or have lost a home in one of the massive fires in recent years.
People can say that utilities are proactively turning off power just to save their own hide. I guess it's a matter of perspective and some people can choose to be cynical. Obviously, there is a massive liability for utilities in California (let's not get started on the legal doctrine of strict liability), but if you witnessed the damage and human cost of life first hand in the wake of the Camp fire, Woolsey or the Wine Country fires, it's hard to say the utilities are just flipping the bird and being passive-aggressive.
That said, observing the PG&E stuff from afar, I'm curious why they are taking such a blunt instrument to de-energization. The other utilities are being more surgical in their approach to this process -- on a circuit by circuit basis. PG&E does have the most high fire risk areas than peer utilities by square miles, but still...it doesn't seem to make sense.
What other utilities have 100 billion dollar potential liabilities if some idiot with an illegal connection burns down a city?
Here is the problem: you can't POSSIBLY mitigate fire hazard California utilities are being asked to mitigate. You can't POSSIBLY have infrastructure good enough to protect California from fires the way the laws are written.
This isn't an issue of bad equipment. Equipment is irrelevant to California law. If something happens on the grid, PG&E has to pay as though they did have fault. With the dead trees and wind, a stupid little spark is all it takes to burn a town to the ground. Everyone paying any attention is aware of inverse condemnation. And on top of that, PG&E is still in court because some ******* made unsafe illegal connections and burned down a city.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/amp/Tubbs-Fire-victims-look-to-pursue-case-against-14114843.phpThat means if there is a small risk of a fire, PG&E now is forced to shut off all it's power in the area. California has created a situation where no amount of risk is manageable.
The solution is clear as day: PG&E is at fault for their negligence. That's it. Entire problem solved.
And the cutting trees thing... Holy ***** The Sierra Club blocked them from cleaning trees. Where is their liability?
https://www.sierraclub.org/california/cnrcc/pge-clearcuts-power-linesIn fact, the mitigation program gets hammered by these environments all the time...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/07/27/group-sues-lafayette-to-stop-pge-from-cutting-down-272-trees/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sacbee.com/latest-news/article219315140.htmlEvery time PG&E attempts to mitigate, they get sued and have to pay extraordinary costs to replace trees or straight out pay for downed trees, or are prevented from clearing the major cause of fires. The list of actions to prevent PG&E from mitigating, even after Tubbs and Camp is ridiculous.
So what can they do, exactly? They can't clear trees without lawsuit after lawsuit. They are liable when the fire isn't their fault due to inverse condemnation. They don't get lawsuits dismissed when it was shown it was an illegal connection.
Honestly, unless they get rid of that law, PG&E will get more and more willing to shut off power, because the HAVE TO to stay in business.
MAYBE if we cut the red tape on tree clearing they could safely operate under the current laws, but with how fast fires move now, I doubt it. Oakland Hills in 1991 was a once in a lifetime insane fire when it happened. Now we have two similar scope fires in the last two years. Maybe three.
PG&E isn't the problem. The problem is way bigger and the solution to prevent utility caused massive fires is WAY WAY more expensive than anyone will ever be willing to pay.