3 ms·

Perhaps just a little more complicated and nuanced than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-14/pg-amp-e-pays-the-cost-of-fires https://www.

Perhaps just a little more complicated and nuanced than that: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-14/pg-amp-e-pays-the-cost-of-fires https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-14/pg-amp...

joe_the_user 8y ago
PG&E has a long history of negligence and stripping whatever value remains from PG&E's shareholders is an eminently appropriate penalty. PG&E may indeed not be entirely responsible for the wild fires but it's responsible enough that this kind of penalty is warranted - ie, trimming trees around PG&E of course was something they knew they had to do and that they failed to do (just like their failure to maintain the pipe that exploded earlier). How California deals with fire risks and utility costs going forward is complex question. Naturally, it's made more complex by the influence large corporations wield. In this day and age, bankruptcy still offers the possibility of PG&E sidling rate-payers with its cost while maintaining shareholder value, despite this being exactly what bankruptcy is intended to avoid. Naturally, I'd like to see the state of California prevent this but I'm not holding my breath. IE, California theoretically could seize PG&E and run it as a public utility but it probably won't and thus little will change.
DannyBee 8y ago
Sure. I wouldn't claim otherwise. However,there are some key things missing here: 1. Lot of states have strict liability of this form for utilities. 2. California is not entirely unique in the land mass of the united states (or the world) in the issues it faces here. It is only unique in that it has not done a good job overcoming them. All of these viewpoints seem to start from from a position that it's impossible for PG&E to succeed (due to global warming, legal climate, etc), and then ask "what do we do in that situation". But as mentioned, it's simply not impossible for PG&E to succeed, and also no evidence that it is particularly harder than it is in similarly situated areas.
- hindsightbias 8y ago
  Can you tell me what other state has dense urban environments in drier, rugged, forested terrain and seemingly yearly wind events > 60 mph? Does not seem like a large venn set to me.
  - zrobotics 8y ago
    Plenty of front range Colorado would qualify. Sure, it isn't dry year-round, but it gets plenty dry during fire season. And with the pine beetle problem, there are large areas with massive amounts of fuel.

joe_the_user 8y ago

PG&E has a long history of negligence and stripping whatever value remains from PG&E's shareholders is an eminently appropriate penalty. PG&E may indeed not be entirely responsible for the wild fires but it's responsible enough that this kind of penalty is warranted - ie, trimming trees around PG&E of course was something they knew they had to do and that they failed to do (just like their failure to maintain the pipe that exploded earlier). How California deals with fire risks and utility costs going forward is complex question. Naturally, it's made more complex by the influence large corporations wield. In this day and age, bankruptcy still offers the possibility of PG&E sidling rate-payers with its cost while maintaining shareholder value, despite this being exactly what bankruptcy is intended to avoid. Naturally, I'd like to see the state of California prevent this but I'm not holding my breath. IE, California theoretically could seize PG&E and run it as a public utility but it probably won't and thus little will change.

DannyBee 8y ago

Sure. I wouldn't claim otherwise. However,there are some key things missing here: 1. Lot of states have strict liability of this form for utilities. 2. California is not entirely unique in the land mass of the united states (or the world) in the issues it faces here. It is only unique in that it has not done a good job overcoming them. All of these viewpoints seem to start from from a position that it's impossible for PG&E to succeed (due to global warming, legal climate, etc), and then ask "what do we do in that situation". But as mentioned, it's simply not impossible for PG&E to succeed, and also no evidence that it is particularly harder than it is in similarly situated areas.

hindsightbias 8y ago
Can you tell me what other state has dense urban environments in drier, rugged, forested terrain and seemingly yearly wind events > 60 mph? Does not seem like a large venn set to me.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  Plenty of front range Colorado would qualify. Sure, it isn't dry year-round, but it gets plenty dry during fire season. And with the pine beetle problem, there are large areas with massive amounts of fuel.