4 ms·

I would say PG&E's biggest fault is their maintenance and inspection practices being subpar. Regular line and pole inspections would work wonders to prevent the

I would say PG&E's biggest fault is their maintenance and inspection practices being subpar. Regular line and pole inspections would work wonders to prevent these types of things. It's hard for PG&E to argue against this when they are willing to spend millions on lobbyists after the fire knowing full well the event may mean regulations that closely resemble what the natural gas utilities have to follow. Deferred maintenance is typical in the utility world. You look at the item being maintained and the criticality and safety of it and determine if it can be deferred. In something like a transmission line, maintenance should not be deferred as the knock on effects are far greater than say a small transformer on a city block. In the utility world there are a lot of software options to help you manage your assets and do preventative maintenance of those assets. I am sure a deeper investigation will look to see if those tools were being used and if they were properly being audited.

JPKab 8y ago
I'm not a California resident, so I'm actually curious and definitely not trying to have an opinion: I've heard from co-workers in California that PG&E has routinely been regulated to keep prices at a certain level, and this has hampered their ability to perform proper maintenance. Is this a remotely fair assessment, or grossly incorrect?
- pdx_flyer 8y ago
  Most utilities are regulated at some level. I am not a PG&E employee but work in the industry. Just about every utility goes through a rate case with the local/county/state governments where they make the arguments for an increase in utility rates. This usually takes into account capital spending and new or significantly improved infrastructure to justify a rates increase.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  PG&E's retail rates have been regulated by the state for a long, long time, since they provide a utility which is vital to the public interest and past deregulatory efforts have immediately resulted in market manipulation and energy crises [1]. However, this doesn't prevent PG&E from performing the appropriate maintenance on their equipment. That fault lies with the policies of upper management. CPUC is well aware of PG&E's obligations to maintain their equipment and regularly audits them and has made hay in the past about PG&E's reactive approach to maintenance [2]. The people who bring up the regulation of retail prices tend to be the ones who have an ideological love for deregulating everything. That's the wrong hammer for this particular screw and hasn't worked out so well in the past. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis [2]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-cited-for-late-maintenance-work-more-often-12303697.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-cited-for-...
  - someguydave 8y ago
    >That's the wrong hammer f So the regulators failed to monitor and enforce maintenance on the PG&E transmission lines, but they also are the only solution because you say so?
  - edmundsauto 8y ago
    Insufficient budgets force managers to prioritize urgent maintenance at the expense of proactive maintenance. I'm confused, if they can't raise their rates, and they don't have enough money to do the proactive maintenance, how do we reach a solution? FWLIW, I definitely haven't dug into their books, so maybe they're cutting fat checks to execs in lieu of this stuff.
    - thaumaturgy 8y ago
      Why do you think they can't raise their rates? They just have to justify their rate increases. All PG&E had to do, years ago, was tell the CPUC, "we've identified a massive maintenance backlog and we need to raise our residential rates __% to clear it." You can see this in action now, at https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regulation/general-rate-case/grc.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regu..., where PG&E has filed a new publicly-available 2020-2022 rate increase request: > This GRC proposal will help bolster wildfire prevention, risk monitoring and emergency response. It will also add new and enhanced safety measures, increase vegetation management, and harden our electric system to increase resilience and help further reduce wildfire risk. > Every three years, PG&E submits the GRC, a proposal for funding its core gas and electric operations. The CPUC conducts an open and transparent review of PG&E's proposal. The CPUC, in turn, has to deal with angry residents and lobbyists from multiple industries. You can find reporting from a rate substantial rate increase four years ago, at https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 I think the quote from PG&E spokesman Keith Stephens in the SF Chronicle article I linked two comments up pretty well sums up where fault lies here: "As we moved from more of a 'monitor only and fix when we can' process, we were much more focused on getting work done," PG&E's maintenance strategy for years -- set by management, not by a lack of funds or prohibition against rate increases -- was, "wait until it becomes a problem." CPUC regulators started investigating it around 2008, found a huuuuuuuge maintenance backlog, and then PG&E said, "oh, yeah, our new strategy now is to try to catch up on some of this stuff."

JPKab 8y ago

I'm not a California resident, so I'm actually curious and definitely not trying to have an opinion: I've heard from co-workers in California that PG&E has routinely been regulated to keep prices at a certain level, and this has hampered their ability to perform proper maintenance. Is this a remotely fair assessment, or grossly incorrect?

pdx_flyer 8y ago
Most utilities are regulated at some level. I am not a PG&E employee but work in the industry. Just about every utility goes through a rate case with the local/county/state governments where they make the arguments for an increase in utility rates. This usually takes into account capital spending and new or significantly improved infrastructure to justify a rates increase.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
PG&E's retail rates have been regulated by the state for a long, long time, since they provide a utility which is vital to the public interest and past deregulatory efforts have immediately resulted in market manipulation and energy crises [1]. However, this doesn't prevent PG&E from performing the appropriate maintenance on their equipment. That fault lies with the policies of upper management. CPUC is well aware of PG&E's obligations to maintain their equipment and regularly audits them and has made hay in the past about PG&E's reactive approach to maintenance [2]. The people who bring up the regulation of retail prices tend to be the ones who have an ideological love for deregulating everything. That's the wrong hammer for this particular screw and hasn't worked out so well in the past. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis [2]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-cited-for-late-maintenance-work-more-often-12303697.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-cited-for-...
- someguydave 8y ago
  >That's the wrong hammer f So the regulators failed to monitor and enforce maintenance on the PG&E transmission lines, but they also are the only solution because you say so?
- edmundsauto 8y ago
  Insufficient budgets force managers to prioritize urgent maintenance at the expense of proactive maintenance. I'm confused, if they can't raise their rates, and they don't have enough money to do the proactive maintenance, how do we reach a solution? FWLIW, I definitely haven't dug into their books, so maybe they're cutting fat checks to execs in lieu of this stuff.
  - thaumaturgy 8y ago
    Why do you think they can't raise their rates? They just have to justify their rate increases. All PG&E had to do, years ago, was tell the CPUC, "we've identified a massive maintenance backlog and we need to raise our residential rates __% to clear it." You can see this in action now, at https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regulation/general-rate-case/grc.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regu..., where PG&E has filed a new publicly-available 2020-2022 rate increase request: > This GRC proposal will help bolster wildfire prevention, risk monitoring and emergency response. It will also add new and enhanced safety measures, increase vegetation management, and harden our electric system to increase resilience and help further reduce wildfire risk. > Every three years, PG&E submits the GRC, a proposal for funding its core gas and electric operations. The CPUC conducts an open and transparent review of PG&E's proposal. The CPUC, in turn, has to deal with angry residents and lobbyists from multiple industries. You can find reporting from a rate substantial rate increase four years ago, at https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 I think the quote from PG&E spokesman Keith Stephens in the SF Chronicle article I linked two comments up pretty well sums up where fault lies here: "As we moved from more of a 'monitor only and fix when we can' process, we were much more focused on getting work done," PG&E's maintenance strategy for years -- set by management, not by a lack of funds or prohibition against rate increases -- was, "wait until it becomes a problem." CPUC regulators started investigating it around 2008, found a huuuuuuuge maintenance backlog, and then PG&E said, "oh, yeah, our new strategy now is to try to catch up on some of this stuff."