5 ms·

> California law compels utilities to pay for damages from wildfires if their equipment caused the blazes — even if the utilities weren’t negligent through, say

by woah 8y ago

> California law compels utilities to pay for damages from wildfires if their equipment caused the blazes — even if the utilities weren’t negligent through, say, inadequate maintenance. This would have happened whether or not PG&E was private. People want a scapegoat and PG&E is California's.

joe_the_user 8y ago
Keep in mind that PG&E performing adequate maintenance would have made causing a blaze considerably less likely. And all evidence points to PG&E indeed engaging in inadequate maintenance and doing so for year. PGE clearly isn't the only entity to blame for the disastrous destruction of the town of Paradise but it certainly seems to carry considerable blame.
- rwcarlsen 8y ago
  Less frequent fires doesn't necessarily mean less overall fire damage. And no-fires is not only impossible, but not desirable - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppression_in_the_United_States#Suppression_as_a_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppressio...
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    Indeed, bad forestry, drought, global warming and so-forth are all to blame for large fires. I don't think that implies that then PG&E should have taken the route of ignoring fire safety and imposing electrically activated "uncontrolled burn policy" here. I mean, PG&E lines starting, say, 15 fires rather than 1,500 in a given high-wind, low-moisture night might have given some of the 60 people who died a bit more time to escape.
    - Aloha 8y ago
      the 1500 number isnt probably as big as it sounds. Based on this a PG&E caused fire could be caused by someone running into a power pole or anything else that causes downed lines. Fires from power lines dont sound like a huge deal, and those 1500 fires are spread over PG&E's whole service area too
labster 8y ago
Nope, not a scapegoat. PG&E has a long history of negligence, poor planning, and straight up lying to consumers. I don't feel the same way about SoCal Edison, whom I only switched away from last month. They have their problems, sure, but it's nowhere near the level of malicious incompetence coming from PG&E for the past 20 years. There are tons of news stories on PG&E if you look, many unrelated to the fires. They spent millions to lie to voters when Yolo County considered switching to SMUD. They routinely backdated maintenance reports to the government. They've had explosions in gas lines, and then there's the Diablo Canyon mess.
- ip26 8y ago
  Non-Californian; from here, it looks like it would have burned sooner or later, thanks to changing climate & history of forest management practices. Whether lightning strike, hobo camp, stupid teenager, OHV, train, it was a tinderbox waiting to go. Is that an inaccurate perception?
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    The situation in Paradise was problematic from a number of angles. Large fires returning seem likely from a multitude of factors. PG&E lines setting 1,500 fires was definitely a way to, uh, jump start whatever process might have happened anyway. One should remember that 60 people died that, many trapped by fire on the road out (where inadequate roads were another problem). So a big fire starting but simply more slowly, might have stopped this particular tragedy. Given that a few year back, a PG&E gas line exploded killing around 30 people, this is an organization I feel zero inclination to give a pass on "inevitability".
  - prewett 8y ago
    I am living in California (but also consider myself non-Californian) near one of the areas that burned, and regardless of PG&E's incompetence, empirically the area was a tinderbox. The Carr fire was caused by a spark from a flat tire of an RV which caused the rim to create sparks against the road. Despite the forest service actively burning underbrush regularly, the fire was the largest in California history until the Mendocino fire unseated it a few weeks later. If sparks from a wheel rim can touch off a blaze, there isn't much margin for error.
true_tuna 8y ago
When they blew up San Bruno they were clearly negligent. They initiated the shift from low pressure to high pressure without proper testing inspection or notice. I assure you that any reasonable person tasked with doing that safely would have done better. The fact that it was done so poorly indicates a critical failing of internal process.
cwkoss 8y ago
Isn't inadequate maintenance alone negligence?

by woah 8y ago

joe_the_user 8y ago

Keep in mind that PG&E performing adequate maintenance would have made causing a blaze considerably less likely. And all evidence points to PG&E indeed engaging in inadequate maintenance and doing so for year. PGE clearly isn't the only entity to blame for the disastrous destruction of the town of Paradise but it certainly seems to carry considerable blame.

rwcarlsen 8y ago
Less frequent fires doesn't necessarily mean less overall fire damage. And no-fires is not only impossible, but not desirable - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppression_in_the_United_States#Suppression_as_a_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppressio...
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Indeed, bad forestry, drought, global warming and so-forth are all to blame for large fires. I don't think that implies that then PG&E should have taken the route of ignoring fire safety and imposing electrically activated "uncontrolled burn policy" here. I mean, PG&E lines starting, say, 15 fires rather than 1,500 in a given high-wind, low-moisture night might have given some of the 60 people who died a bit more time to escape.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    the 1500 number isnt probably as big as it sounds. Based on this a PG&E caused fire could be caused by someone running into a power pole or anything else that causes downed lines. Fires from power lines dont sound like a huge deal, and those 1500 fires are spread over PG&E's whole service area too

labster 8y ago

Nope, not a scapegoat. PG&E has a long history of negligence, poor planning, and straight up lying to consumers. I don't feel the same way about SoCal Edison, whom I only switched away from last month. They have their problems, sure, but it's nowhere near the level of malicious incompetence coming from PG&E for the past 20 years. There are tons of news stories on PG&E if you look, many unrelated to the fires. They spent millions to lie to voters when Yolo County considered switching to SMUD. They routinely backdated maintenance reports to the government. They've had explosions in gas lines, and then there's the Diablo Canyon mess.

ip26 8y ago
Non-Californian; from here, it looks like it would have burned sooner or later, thanks to changing climate & history of forest management practices. Whether lightning strike, hobo camp, stupid teenager, OHV, train, it was a tinderbox waiting to go. Is that an inaccurate perception?
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  The situation in Paradise was problematic from a number of angles. Large fires returning seem likely from a multitude of factors. PG&E lines setting 1,500 fires was definitely a way to, uh, jump start whatever process might have happened anyway. One should remember that 60 people died that, many trapped by fire on the road out (where inadequate roads were another problem). So a big fire starting but simply more slowly, might have stopped this particular tragedy. Given that a few year back, a PG&E gas line exploded killing around 30 people, this is an organization I feel zero inclination to give a pass on "inevitability".
- prewett 8y ago
  I am living in California (but also consider myself non-Californian) near one of the areas that burned, and regardless of PG&E's incompetence, empirically the area was a tinderbox. The Carr fire was caused by a spark from a flat tire of an RV which caused the rim to create sparks against the road. Despite the forest service actively burning underbrush regularly, the fire was the largest in California history until the Mendocino fire unseated it a few weeks later. If sparks from a wheel rim can touch off a blaze, there isn't much margin for error.

true_tuna 8y ago

When they blew up San Bruno they were clearly negligent. They initiated the shift from low pressure to high pressure without proper testing inspection or notice. I assure you that any reasonable person tasked with doing that safely would have done better. The fact that it was done so poorly indicates a critical failing of internal process.

cwkoss 8y ago

Isn't inadequate maintenance alone negligence?