5 ms·

If PG&E was negligent, they should be held accountable. On the other hand, if this happened despite all reasonable safety precautions, it seems like scapegoatin

If PG&E was negligent, they should be held accountable. On the other hand, if this happened despite all reasonable safety precautions, it seems like scapegoating. I generally despise the concept of limited liability as it applies to every corporation in every kind of business, but this particular case seems to be exactly the kind of situation that justifies it. Unless one prefers that this kind of infrastructure be run only by the government itself (not an unreasonable belief), some kind of liability shield is necessary. Otherwise no sane business person would take that risk. Do you want the power infrastructure run by insane people?

itronitron 8y ago
This sort of thing happens with power lines in high winds and drought conditions, although I am not familiar with the particulars of the recent CA fire.
randyrand 8y ago
If it were run by the government, how would the government be held liable? We can’t ‘fine’ the government. All we have are brief elections. So the question becomes - are elections a better incentive for forest safely than financial liability is for a power company? Seems laughable to claim that.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > If it were run by the government, how would the government be held liable? At the ballot box. You're correct that they can't be held financially liable even to the extent that corporations currently are. That's why I wasn't personally suggesting that the power grid should be nationalized. I'm just saying that "make PG&E pay for everything without limit" leaves no other option, so that's the debate people would need to have.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    No ammount of voting makes the government liable to foot a bill. Government has no money of its own, it takes it from someone else.
    - notacoward 8y ago
      I know that's something the think-they're-cool kids like to say, but how is it even relevant? In a tort context, it doesn't matter where the money comes from or whose money it is in abstract, and BTW it could just be made up out of thin air instead of being taken via taxes so even that part isn't accurate. All that matters is whether the plaintiff can be forced to pay. If it's the government then the answer is no. If it's a private party who doesn't have the money the answer is still no. The outcome doesn't change. If a plaintiff who is providing an essential service is driven into bankruptcy then the government will either have to provide operating funds or take over entirely, and we're back to how they can be held accountable. "Their" money vs. "someone else's" money never comes into it. No matter whose money it is, nobody can force the government to do anything it reserves the right not to. As the entity controlling the courts and the enforcement of courts' decisions, they can simply nullify any decision ... until they're held accountable at the ballot box. The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd. All it would do is put more things in the hands of government.
      - conanbatt 8y ago
        > The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd Of course, and I dont agree with your intepretation that the courts can nullify requests on the state: the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations, it just does it by taxing third parties. It's an important detail: if if PGE threatens bankrupcy and for example, endangers payouts to small counties and individuals that lost their homes, you could think that the state should bail out PG&E to help those people. After-all the bailout is free. Or you should think that the state invents a program to raise taxes to alleviate the condition of the victims, and PG&E is not even mentioned.
        notacoward 8y ago
        > the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations Even more often it denies suit. It's called sovereign immunity, and at the US federal level it must be explicitly waived before a suit can even start. There are many other ways that governments at all levels protect themselves from the liability a private party would have for doing the same things. An occasional exception doesn't change the fact that they have and use the ability. > you could think that the state should bail out PG&E Not "should" so much as "will". I know it's not free, but it's going to happen anyway in the case of essential services. That's the real point. You can't sue PG&E into oblivion. You can just back-door nationalize it via lawsuits. Is that what you think should happen? I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here, other than repeating a "gubmint is evil" trope that has no bearing on the situation at hand.
- njarboe 8y ago
  How is PG&E going to control housing growth into forested areas and policies of the US Forest service, among other factors that cause these fires to do so much damage? They can't, so if they don't get some legal relief on how much damage they are liable for, they may just have to abandon those areas pron to fire (ie., much of the state).

itronitron 8y ago

This sort of thing happens with power lines in high winds and drought conditions, although I am not familiar with the particulars of the recent CA fire.

randyrand 8y ago

If it were run by the government, how would the government be held liable? We can’t ‘fine’ the government. All we have are brief elections. So the question becomes - are elections a better incentive for forest safely than financial liability is for a power company? Seems laughable to claim that.

notacoward 8y ago
> If it were run by the government, how would the government be held liable? At the ballot box. You're correct that they can't be held financially liable even to the extent that corporations currently are. That's why I wasn't personally suggesting that the power grid should be nationalized. I'm just saying that "make PG&E pay for everything without limit" leaves no other option, so that's the debate people would need to have.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  No ammount of voting makes the government liable to foot a bill. Government has no money of its own, it takes it from someone else.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    I know that's something the think-they're-cool kids like to say, but how is it even relevant? In a tort context, it doesn't matter where the money comes from or whose money it is in abstract, and BTW it could just be made up out of thin air instead of being taken via taxes so even that part isn't accurate. All that matters is whether the plaintiff can be forced to pay. If it's the government then the answer is no. If it's a private party who doesn't have the money the answer is still no. The outcome doesn't change. If a plaintiff who is providing an essential service is driven into bankruptcy then the government will either have to provide operating funds or take over entirely, and we're back to how they can be held accountable. "Their" money vs. "someone else's" money never comes into it. No matter whose money it is, nobody can force the government to do anything it reserves the right not to. As the entity controlling the courts and the enforcement of courts' decisions, they can simply nullify any decision ... until they're held accountable at the ballot box. The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd. All it would do is put more things in the hands of government.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      > The idea that unlimited liability somehow creates accountability is absurd Of course, and I dont agree with your intepretation that the courts can nullify requests on the state: the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations, it just does it by taxing third parties. It's an important detail: if if PGE threatens bankrupcy and for example, endangers payouts to small counties and individuals that lost their homes, you could think that the state should bail out PG&E to help those people. After-all the bailout is free. Or you should think that the state invents a program to raise taxes to alleviate the condition of the victims, and PG&E is not even mentioned.
      - notacoward 8y ago
        > the state often pays a lot of damages and compensations Even more often it denies suit. It's called sovereign immunity, and at the US federal level it must be explicitly waived before a suit can even start. There are many other ways that governments at all levels protect themselves from the liability a private party would have for doing the same things. An occasional exception doesn't change the fact that they have and use the ability. > you could think that the state should bail out PG&E Not "should" so much as "will". I know it's not free, but it's going to happen anyway in the case of essential services. That's the real point. You can't sue PG&E into oblivion. You can just back-door nationalize it via lawsuits. Is that what you think should happen? I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here, other than repeating a "gubmint is evil" trope that has no bearing on the situation at hand.
njarboe 8y ago
How is PG&E going to control housing growth into forested areas and policies of the US Forest service, among other factors that cause these fires to do so much damage? They can't, so if they don't get some legal relief on how much damage they are liable for, they may just have to abandon those areas pron to fire (ie., much of the state).