4 ms·

From my perspective as a power utility engineer, this turns on whether PG&E made reasonable and diligent effort to maintain and operate its system in a way that

From my perspective as a power utility engineer, this turns on whether PG&E made reasonable and diligent effort to maintain and operate its system in a way that mitigated potential fire hazards. Quoting from Ars Technica's coverage of this: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/pge-its-likely-our-equipment-was-ignition-point-for-deadly-camp-fire/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/pge-i... >The utility goes on to state that its Caribou-Palermo 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line deenergized approximately 15 minutes before a PG&E employee observed a fire in the vicinity of a tower on the line. In addition, "a suspension insulator supporting a transposition jumper had separated from an arm" on the tower in question." Mechanical failure of a suspension insulator in the absence of something physically falling on it is a very rare occurrence, and would only plausibly occur if the insulator is well outside its normal service life. To me this points to inadequate maintenance. We're talking about equipment that already has a 30-year service life and a miniscule failure rate. Obviously, there will be more detailed investigation to come. But PG&E doesn't look good here, and unless they can show they were inspecting and maintaining that line in accordance with normal industry practices, they are going to get nailed for this.

turtlegrids 8y ago
>Mechanical failure of a suspension insulator in the absence of something physically falling on it is a very rare occurrence, and would only plausibly occur if the insulator is well outside its normal service life. What about one or more bullets being shot at it, as numerous locals have stated happened?
- eigenvector 8y ago
  That will certainly cause insulator failure. And if PG&E can show that's what happened it would certainly help their case that the ignition was not preventable (by the utility).
  - turtlegrids 8y ago
    will it really help their case, though? I thought the whole issue here is that even if not negligent, if a California utility's infrastructure is a cause (not THE cause) and even if not negligent, the utility can and will be held liable for the damages. One random source (Thanks Duckduckgo!): https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-approves-bill-to-limit-utility-liability-for-wildfires-but-not/531483/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-approves-bill-to... > California courts use a "strict liability" interpretation of the doctrine that holds utilities accountable for wildfires caused by their equipment, even if a company is not found negligent.
    - eigenvector 8y ago
      Good point. I was only looking at it from an engineering point of view, not legal. Although the strict liability doctrine is common for environmental offenses because it makes prosecution a lot easier * , it might not make sense to bankrupt PG&E for something they couldn't have actually prevented while still fulfilling their service mandate. * Imagine a company spills 50,000 litres of oil into a river. You don't have to prove what happened or anyone's motivation for doing it, just that the oil was in the river and it came from their facility.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  Where are you seeing/hearing locals saying this? So far the only source I've seen for this is PG&E's own report, which found bullet holes on the pole and on some other equipment nearby, but didn't establish the age of the holes or that they in any way contributed to the fire. Considering that there are already a couple of experienced law firms shopping their services to affected residents, and that 100% liability for PG&E represents their best chance of financial recovery, I'd be quite surprised if residents were going around saying, "...uh, yeah, so actually we did that one to ourselves."
  - turtlegrids 8y ago
    PG&E staff live local to the area. Are they not locals?
    - thaumaturgy 8y ago
      It's a bit disingenuous to just say "locals" when you're talking about "PG&E employees".
larkinrichards 8y ago
From other reporting, which cites the same WSJ article, PG&E planned to replace 5 towers on the Caribou-Palermo line in 2013 and delayed the work yearly: https://abc7news.com/pg-e-planned-in-2013-to-fix-power-line-that-may-have-started-camp-fire/5160307/ https://abc7news.com/pg-e-planned-in-2013-to-fix-power-line-... > Mark Toney, a consumer advocate with The Utility Reform Network, told the I-Team, "They promised to fix it in 2013, they promised to fix it in 2014 and 2015 and 2016, it is not fixed today and that is the line that failed before the fire."

turtlegrids 8y ago

>Mechanical failure of a suspension insulator in the absence of something physically falling on it is a very rare occurrence, and would only plausibly occur if the insulator is well outside its normal service life. What about one or more bullets being shot at it, as numerous locals have stated happened?

eigenvector 8y ago
That will certainly cause insulator failure. And if PG&E can show that's what happened it would certainly help their case that the ignition was not preventable (by the utility).
- turtlegrids 8y ago
  will it really help their case, though? I thought the whole issue here is that even if not negligent, if a California utility's infrastructure is a cause (not THE cause) and even if not negligent, the utility can and will be held liable for the damages. One random source (Thanks Duckduckgo!): https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-approves-bill-to-limit-utility-liability-for-wildfires-but-not/531483/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-approves-bill-to... > California courts use a "strict liability" interpretation of the doctrine that holds utilities accountable for wildfires caused by their equipment, even if a company is not found negligent.
  - eigenvector 8y ago
    Good point. I was only looking at it from an engineering point of view, not legal. Although the strict liability doctrine is common for environmental offenses because it makes prosecution a lot easier * , it might not make sense to bankrupt PG&E for something they couldn't have actually prevented while still fulfilling their service mandate. * Imagine a company spills 50,000 litres of oil into a river. You don't have to prove what happened or anyone's motivation for doing it, just that the oil was in the river and it came from their facility.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
Where are you seeing/hearing locals saying this? So far the only source I've seen for this is PG&E's own report, which found bullet holes on the pole and on some other equipment nearby, but didn't establish the age of the holes or that they in any way contributed to the fire. Considering that there are already a couple of experienced law firms shopping their services to affected residents, and that 100% liability for PG&E represents their best chance of financial recovery, I'd be quite surprised if residents were going around saying, "...uh, yeah, so actually we did that one to ourselves."
- turtlegrids 8y ago
  PG&E staff live local to the area. Are they not locals?
  - thaumaturgy 8y ago
    It's a bit disingenuous to just say "locals" when you're talking about "PG&E employees".

larkinrichards 8y ago

From other reporting, which cites the same WSJ article, PG&E planned to replace 5 towers on the Caribou-Palermo line in 2013 and delayed the work yearly: https://abc7news.com/pg-e-planned-in-2013-to-fix-power-line-that-may-have-started-camp-fire/5160307/ https://abc7news.com/pg-e-planned-in-2013-to-fix-power-line-... > Mark Toney, a consumer advocate with The Utility Reform Network, told the I-Team, "They promised to fix it in 2013, they promised to fix it in 2014 and 2015 and 2016, it is not fixed today and that is the line that failed before the fire."