14 ms·

California utility to cut power to 27k customers to reduce wildfire risk

brilee 7y ago
So if the utility is on the line for wildfire costs regardless, then here's a thought: maybe they'll do the economically rational thing and "accidentally" trigger smaller fires every so often.
BillinghamJ 7y ago
So it sounds like because they've been held liable for presumably setting up their power lines in an unsafe manner, they're turning off the lines rather than, yanno, fixing the problem. Hopefully have delivered some chunky UPSes and decent support SLAs to those with medical equipment. Could see this backfiring if eg people start using lots of generators instead...
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  The dark side of this is, what if it's not economical at all to service these outlying customers? What if the cost of retrofitting those lines is greater than the total future amortized profit from servicing those customers during wildfire conditions? I don't think there's a law on the books requiring that everyone have access to electrical service (like there is for, say, USPS service). Maybe beefy solar setups with battery banks and ability to run off-grid will start becoming the norm there. It is California, after all; it's a great place for solar. Heck, it might easily be cheaper for PG&E to subsidize the installation of these systems vs committing to maintaining all those lines properly in perpetuity.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - chroem- 7y ago
    >I don't think there's a law on the books requiring that everyone have access to electrical service As far as I'm aware, that's the main point of having a regulated power utility. They have to deliver universal service.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      Do they though? If I build a new house in the middle of nowhere, is the utility required to spend tens of millions of dollars to build out new infrastructure to serve just me? My understanding is they aren't.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Without looking up the specific California laws, a typical way such obligations were implemented was to require regulatory approval for discontinuing existing lines. So it’s not symmetric for new versus existing lines.
        azernik 7y ago
        Assuming one were interested in looking up such laws, how would one go about it? I've been poking away at the Google machine with no luck.
      - dillonmckay 7y ago
        We are talking about incorporated townships, though. So, more like an organized group of users in the middle of nowhere, but do have rights as a recognized municipality of the state.
      - ghouse 7y ago
        If you want electricity, you may be required to pay them to extend the infrastructure to your house in the middle of nowhere (at your cost) and then they are required to provide you power and maintain the infrastructure (and assume the liability). If other people begin using the infrastructure within a set period of time, you will receive partial refund for the upfront expense.
  - lacker 7y ago
    What if it's not economical at all to service these outlying customers? This is almost definitely the case. Consider that PG+E just went bankrupt from fire costs. If you split PG+E into two parts, the "safe utility" that served urban areas, and the "risky utility" that served rural areas, the fire costs would almost all go to the "risky utility". If they were allowed to, PG+E would be better off simply dropping every customer more than 60 miles away from San Francisco. But it just doesn't work that way. PG+E is technically a public company, but the customers they are required to serve and the prices they are allowed to charge are so heavily regulated, it often seems more like it's a complicated extension of the California government.
    - njarboe 7y ago
      Pretty much all of California urban areas have fire danger so no area is really "safe". The Santa Rosa and Oakland fires come to mind, along with all of the LA hill blazes that threaten the city most years.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The dark side of this is, what if it's not economical at all to service these outlying customers? PG&E is a regulated regional monopoly with a universal service mandate within it's service area that has huge piles of money to throw at political fights to stop having public power retailers take over some of it's service areas, so it can just suck up the cost of dealing with uneconomical rural customers as the cost of the privilege of being allowed to own profitable urban and suburban customers it is willing to fight for.
    - chewbacha 7y ago
      > has huge piles of money Do you have evidence for this? I assumed going bankrupt is a pretty large piece of evidence against this argument.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        The piles of money they've pulled out for exactly that purpose whenever it has come up, before and between the two bankruptcies.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    Maybe this is just another sign that people should stop building in the wildland urban interface. Not that they will. We as a country feel quite entitled to build in unsafe places.
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    > it might easily be cheaper for PG&E to subsidize the installation of these systems vs committing to maintaining all those lines properly in perpetuity. With how liability works in California, I'd be really curious to see.
  - tibyat 7y ago
    this was mentioned in the article. they are required to service those areas.
- stakhanov 7y ago
  The thing about generators was the first thing on my mind as well.
- AFascistWorld 7y ago
  Is there a way to fix it? Underground lines would be prohibitively expensive.
  - Svip 7y ago
    I am genuinely curious why in a rich country like the USA, wires aren't dug down. I realise using my own country - Denmark - is an unfair comparison, since it's much smaller, but all wires leading to houses are dug down here. Even out in the rural countryside. However, even a small state like Rhode Island has plenty of overhead wires, despite being a tenth the size of Denmark. But surely a rich state like California could dig down wires in areas where it would significant benefits. The benefits are everywhere, obviously, but some areas would gain more benefits than others. Can a state/country really be considered rich, if it cannot afford to dig down electric wires?
    - AFascistWorld 7y ago
      Unfortunately, there are too many places demanding money in CA, the Bullet Train, congested roads, teachers, homeless people, housing shortage, solutions to protect houses from wild fires.
    - owenmarshall 7y ago
      Because doing infrastructure well - as opposed to holding it together with bubblegum and bailing wire - means spending money. And every dime spent is one dime less for shareholders. As the saying goes: this suboptimal outcome is a feature, not a bug.
      - lacker 7y ago
        And every dime spent is one dime less for shareholders. Well, PG+E just went bankrupt, so there aren't any dimes left for shareholders anyway. It's not like they're making a huge margin of profit.
      - nostromo95 7y ago
        No that’s not how utilities work. Utilities are compensated for the approved capital they invest in infrastructure in the form of higher customer rates. The upshot of this is that every utility in the country would love nothing more than to underground every overhead line in their service area. The reason this doesn’t happen is because public service commissions, who approve capital plans, aren’t willing to saddle customers with the astronomical costs of undergrounding lines (which runs $2-$3M per mile on distribution, depending on rock content of soil).
- rdlecler1 7y ago
  The challenge is that they need to run on a budget and so buried cables in a earthquake prone area may have been prohibitively expensive. Not a great situation to be in.
  - lacker 7y ago
    The rural area around Paradise isn't very earthquake-prone. It's just pretty large and sprawling, which is what makes burying all those cables so expensive.
    - Trav5 7y ago
      There is also a lot of bedrock.
- behringer 7y ago
  No doubt the government will take over the operation if they fail to deliver.
- lacker 7y ago
  There is an important point here. They aren't being held liable for setting up their power lines in an unsafe manner. The way California fire liability works, even if you set up your power lines according to best practices, if your equipment happens to have caused the initial spark that causes a $25 billion fire, then you are liable for that entire amount. For more detail see articles like: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-strict-wildfire-liability-rule-13604239.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-st... It isn't clear that PG+E did anything wrong in maintaining power lines. That just isn't how liability works here. There is always some chance that power lines cause a small fire, and recently the costs of a small fire have grown massively, as it has become more common that a small fire expands into a large fire. PG+E is facing rising costs, and they don't really have many ways to lower fire risk that they haven't already taken. They are not legally allowed to stop serving this area. So they are forced into measures like these. (They also just went bankrupt, so it's not like PG+E investors are making a killing while underserving their customers.)
  - amluto 7y ago
    With all due respect to PG&E and the CPUC, no, they did not. The best practice is to install substation equipment that prevents enormous current from flowing through a phase-to-ground fault. Petersen coils and similar devices do this, and they appear to be reasonably widespread in Europe. Heck, suppose PG&E turns off power during high wind events. Do they even have the required equipment to avoid starting a fire if a line fell and is still on the ground after the wind stops when they turn power back on? This type of equipment exists.
    - pixl97 7y ago
      At the same time I've seen non-fallen lines drop sparks to ground level because of a hot spot in the line.
      - amluto 7y ago
        As far as I know, none of the recent fires were started by events like that. The ones a looked up were single phase faults where a line hit something other than a different phase conductor due to wind or mechanical failure. A 90% solution would be an excellent start here.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  Devil's advocate: Utilities are for profit orgs but rates and (kinda) by extension profits are all heavily regulated. You say that they should bury lines or spend a gazillion improving them, but what if the state balks at letting them increase rates to cover expenses? Where should they get the money for that? I guess that building in th middle of nowhere and expecting power at $0.xx kwh and safe power lines in all terrain and weather might be a dream.
- cbhl 7y ago
  From what I can tell of the notice PG&E sent me in the mail, they're not turning off the lines permanently. They're temporarily turning off the lines for a few days so they can fix the problem (trimming trees near power lines, performing maintenance on substations). By my read, after two consecutive years' of fire lawsuits being judged against PG&E and going bankrupt, someone decided to listen to the engineers and technicians on the ground.
14 7y ago
If I was one of those 27000 customers I would be doing my best to never again be a customer of them. If I had to buy solar, gas generators or a giant hamster wheel powering my stuff I would because cutting off power in this manner for this reason simply is unacceptable in this day and age.
- human20190310 7y ago
  The utility might be glad to see such customers go away. It may be the case that the utility is providing service in areas it would not choose to serve today, given the fire risk.
- lacker 7y ago
  That would be fantastic for the utility. PG+E would love to just drop those customers entirely. The cost of fire risk alone is more than they make from this region. They can't because they're legally required to keep delivering power there.
- pixl97 7y ago
  So you're pissed that you finally have to pay the true cost for your utilities. You've been subsidized for the last 50+ years. It's time to stop subsidizing your sprawl.
skybrian 7y ago
In rural areas, power can go out and stay out for quite a while due to a storm. Cutting power preventatively is new, but it seems like if you should have plans for getting by when the power goes out in any case?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Rich people have whole house generators and will be mostly unaffected. This is a major PITA to everyone else.
  - anonuser123456 7y ago
    A generator is not that expensive.
    - bsder 7y ago
      A generator must be maintained, tested, gasoline drained/conditioned regularly, etc ... Many of the people I know who bought generators have been eyeballing battery storage very heavily. If the situation is so bad that you need your generator more than a week, you probably need to leave and go somewhere else anyway. And batteries are nearing the point where they can do what you need.
  - bearjaws 7y ago
    Living in the country side is supposed to be expensive, but for the past 40 years or so all of the population centers of America have been subsidizing rural life. My parents live 30 miles inland in Florida and recently wanted their 5 mile dirt road paved, total cost would have been north of $2,000,000... Even if that was split among everyone living there you are looking at $133,000. Things don't get better once you consider their power lines, at $285,000 per mile you are looking at $95,000 just to run power to their home and all adjacent homes. Then add in water + sewage, at $25.18 per foot, lets say to all the same houses getting power, that is an additional $86,619. You also probably want modern internet connectivity (cable, fiber) you are looking at another $10,000 per household. Assuming there is 5% maintenance per year for all this infrastructure, that is $16,230.95 a year. Meanwhile in a city, the amount each individual is paying is a tiny fraction, probably less than 0.01%. Sure a urban home is probably more expensive, but given that a rural home should incur a near $400,000 premium, you shouldn't have been able to afford that rural home to begin with. America stands to save hundreds of billions if we actually force the cost of living in rural areas to be what it is, rather than subsidize it.
NDizzle 7y ago
My favorite pizza place was affected by this action. I'm about 25 minutes away from the affected area. It's not a very remote location.
Keverw 7y ago
Wow, is this forever or only temporary? I know just a few hours or a day without power is a huge downside for me... Sounds horrible. I guess they are forced to get a solar setup or move somewhere else... Which if no power, probably lowers home values so moving is a hassle. Plus you got to sell your house, finding another house that you like and is comparable, moving your things... Some people live paycheck to paycheck so moving right now would be a huge pain. I got a friend in Florida and we were talking about solar a few years ago. Apparently in Florida if you set up your house for solar and make enough and store it to power everything... You are still legally required to pay the utility company to be hooked up or the county can condemn your house and kick you out. Sure you might end up using zero kilowatt hours, but still, all these other fees tacked on. Also required to get permission and inspection by that same power company too. So the sunshine state isn't friendly to solar, so ironic. I love Florida otherwise though, a bunch of nice places and things to do there. I've been watching some full-time RV and digital nomad YouTubers on and off... Really makes me feel like minimalist and enough solar to be self-sufficient in an RV would be a great lifestyle. If you want to move you just have to put your things away, bring in the awning, slides, jacks then turn the key and go! I figured if I did it I'd try to stay in an area for a week or two though as I think moving every day would be annoying since I'd probably go for a bigger rig more home feeling. Probably private RV parks, national parks, state parks. Some cities and counties also have RV parks to try and attract tourists to their area. so mostly paid options, but then national forests and out west tons of BLM land to boondock on for free, however, some of these agencies do have some paid areas too. Plus I kinda feel like you don't even own your house truly. Some places are so picky you even need a permit to install a doorbell. Then HOAs are even more of a pain, I heard in some if your mailbox paint is chipping the HOA can fine you and even take away your house at some point. At least with RVs, they are considered vehicles instead so the local building code guy has no power unless you are parked someone that disallows RVs. Then I remember hearing about an HOA who was harassing a veteran for flying the American Flag. If you decide to full-time RV since you no longer own a house or rent an apartment you can choose to be a resident in any state friendly to nomads, such as domiciling in South Dakota or Texas which each has their own list of pros and cons. Some people are even forced to change their residence anyways as their former state won't let them use a mail forwarder. Was reading someone who formerly lived in Michigan changed their license and reg online to a mail forwarder located in the state as they wanted to still be residents there, and got a nasty letter with like only 10 days to correct their address or face suspension of their license and registration. I guess in a way RV people are considered homeless even if you have a half a million dollar RV that costs more than the house it's parked in front of. I think states do this also to try to discriminate against homeless people's voting rights too. So forced to change their domicile to another more friendlier state or use a relative address. But I guess if Michigan doesn't want full-time RVers to call them home, oh well as they can lose out on those resident income taxes since they no longer had a job in MI but being a resident still means all income is still taxable there even if they worked in no income tax Texas for a seasonal job they'd still owe back to MI even if they haven't been there in over a year as they still claimed MI as their domicile. At least with South Dakota, you can spend only 1 night there at a hotel, rent a mailbox and be considered a resident. Then can register your car and RV without bringing it with you if you flew there on a short notice as given little choice. SD even allows you to register by mail too unlike some states that require you to physically bring it with you to be inspected. if SD was like that then you'd have to pretty much drive straight to SD before that 10 days was up, hoping you still have time left by time you even got the notice. So if you had to change things on short notice, South Dakota is a perfect state if your former home state you lived your entire life in decides to make you a refugee. So I guess living in an RV would work out if you made enough money remotely or retired... Probably someone who lives in a big city with a 2,000 a month apartment would save a bunch possibly. However, while it has it's pros, there's also cons and challenges too like the whole where do you live on paper. I know people are into van life too, but I don't think I'd be comfortable in a small space, plus people try to just park and sleep wherever for free. Some are successful, some get woken up by the police at 3 AM in the morning. So wouldn't want that stress, rather have an actual RV, and a separate car to explore away from it. For example people with a Class A motorhome tow a car behind such as a Jeep - what people call a "toad" in the RV community. If you went with a travel trailer or fifth wheel, unhook and leave that at camp and drive your SUV, van or pickup around. As you don't want to try and take the big RV to go shopping or checking out local attractions. Get the RV set up and don't move it until your reservation is up. Be a nice lifestyle! I'm not too happy with where I am now, and I feel like there's so much to do and explore around both the US itself and the world even that staying in the same area all your life from birth to death just sounds sad and is depressing. Reading things like this just reminds me of how little control people have. Forced to have only 1 utility for power, for water, maybe 1 or 2 phones, tv and internet providers. Well, some areas 1 cable company, phone company offers fiber-based TV in some areas but of course, there's always around 2 satellite options... but then again some cities and HOAs try to prevent people from using satellite even though that violates the FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices "OTARD" rule. Some don't like how they look I guess, some try to limit the number of dishes, etc. I was randomly searching and found there's a bunch of cities that still have ordinances banning satellite TV completely... I guess due to giving the local cable company a monopoly as they profit from the franchise fees. Probably would win in court though due to the federal law depending on specifics as some restrictions are allowed to be regulated by the locals narrowly written such as not allowing changes to historical houses or drilling holes into the roof of an apartment building would be a no no as you don't own it, etc type of restrictions but still a hassle. You risk getting a misdemeanor criminal record because you didn't like the local cable company. I find satellite TV annoying when the weather is bad, but otherwise, I feel it's a better choice. Like the boxes, UI feels so much faster. As far as I know, Dish makes their own software and hardware, while the cable company just buys an off the shelf box and installs premade Java-based OS called OpenCable. I guess RV you are limiting yourself to satellite tv, and mobile internet plans - which is a whole topic in the RV community itself. Certain providers people recommend, with cell boosters, wifi boosters and repeaters and creating your own internal wifi network yourself... So you can have all your devices connect to your own router and then point it towards a cell modem or repeat the RV's park Wifi. Useful too if you have like a TV, game console, and other devices... Can change the internet connection source without reconnecting them all to that new source individually. Then some people bought a house in a rural area with their own septic system or well. Then when the city or county starts providing water and sewer you are forced to connect to their system instead of being self-sufficient using the existing systems you've already paid for and are maintaining.
bearjaws 7y ago
I am all for utility companies cutting service to rural areas, for cost savings or otherwise. Living in the country side is supposed to be expensive, but for the past 40 years or so all of the population centers of America have been subsidizing rural life. My parents live 30 miles inland in Florida and recently wanted their 5 mile dirt road paved, total cost would have been north of $2,000,000... Even if that was split among everyone living there you are looking at $133,000. Things don't get better once you consider their power lines, at $285,000 per mile you are looking at $95,000 just to run power to their home and all adjacent homes. Then add in water + sewage, at $25.18 per foot, lets say to all the same houses getting power, that is an additional $86,619. You also probably want modern internet connectivity (cable, fiber) you are looking at another $10,000 per household. Assuming there is 5% maintenance per year for all this infrastructure, that is $16,230.95 a year. Meanwhile in a city, the amount each individual is paying is a tiny fraction, probably less than 0.01%. Sure a urban home is probably more expensive, but given that a rural home should incur a near $400,000 premium, you shouldn't have been able to afford that rural home to begin with. America stands to save hundreds of billions if we actually force the cost of living in rural areas to be what it is, rather than subsidize it. People who live in the country side already use wells for water due to the cost of water + sewage, why is it any different for power?
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  And meanwhile, all of these rural services have a greatly increased environmental impact than in urban environment. It sounds harsh, but some of these people will just need to adapt their lifestyles.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  On the other hand, rents and home prices are already unaffordable in many urban areas. If building infrastructure outside the most densely populated areas becomes a purely private responsibility, it will exacerbate these issues.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    The correct solution to do this problem is to build more cities.
1024core 7y ago
AKA collective punishment for the people.
torpfactory 7y ago
I think this presents an interesting case for permanent "grid defection" in rural areas. The theory goes that as solar panels and battery prices drop, it will eventually make sense for homeowners to produce their own power, and "defect" from the electrical grid completely. Obviously this isn't a perfect solution: for example, the homeowner is now solely responsible for fixing their own power supply issues, instead of the collective "insurance" the grid operator provides by fixing grid issues for customers. I think that rural customers in wildfire prone areas provide one of the best use cases for grid defection. The power company can save money in two ways: by not having to maintain relatively long power lines which serve few customers and by reducing their exposure to liability for wildfire damages. It might even be in the utilities interest to subsidize rural customers defection, to focus on more urban customers. Grid defection relies on low-cost solar and batter technology, and I think we will have both in the next decade. This is something that was not even possible in years past: extending the grid to rural areas was a great example of government sponsored economic equity that market forces alone may not have provided. Two things that would help aid the transition: (1) Holding grid operators liable for wildfire risk (or at least part of it) and (2) forcing rural customers to pay a greater price for their power, reflective of the greater cost to provide it. I know (2) won't be popular but I think it does align some economic incentives correctly. I would also advocate implementing price increases only when solar+battery is very close to grid parity, so customers actually have a reasonable choice.
- magnetic 7y ago
  > The theory goes that as solar panels and battery prices drop, it will eventually make sense for homeowners to produce their own power, and "defect" from the electrical grid completely. I think it already makes sense in California (given the amount of sun we get). A Tesla solar install of 8 kW solar production + 2 PowerWalls (27 kWh capacity) has a loan payment of $188/month, which is probably lower than what your cost would be from the utility company for an equivalent "level of service". The only tricky part is to figure out the answers to "what size panels + storage do I need so that, given elements (weather mostly), the probability of my storage being depleted any point during the day is less than X%". Solar companies probably already know the answer to this given the data they already have, but the other part of the equation is changes to the owner's consumption (buying an EV? new child on the way? changing your range/dryer/heaters from gas to electric? etc) That's the real pain point (it can be mitigated with a generator, but that gets complicated), which leads to a certain amount of oversizing, and as a consequence, waste (since you can't feed it back to the grid). Also the occasional failure in your own infrastructure could lead to blackouts that could be more frequent than if you were tied to the grid (Mean Time To Repair is higher with your own infrastructure for obvious reasons), although I have to admit that the grid hasn't been very good in that respect. A solar system is generally maintenance free, but failures do happen. Still, I think it's worth it (that's why I took the plunge a few years ago).
ghouse 7y ago
To serve customers in high-risk areas safely, it's much more expensive than to serve customers in low-risk areas. Insulated overhead conductors or buried circuits are expensive. Yet the current regulatory paradigm requires that the customers in both regions pay the same amount for electricity.
gcb0 7y ago
For people thinking like robots on this, and not seeing the social impacts, i suggest reading city of quartz. Or if you don't like to read books, watch Chinatown. Both will show you how the Water & Power's corrupt officials used aqueducts being artificially shut down, and then magically repaired at their convenient timing, to control price of land for their personal riches. Also, that cost is paid by city, yes, because this initial work is what enable news cities to eventually came into existence, offloading the first city superpopulation problems. It is not done out of altruism, like limited mind people like to boast when defending such short sighted measures.
- freehunter 7y ago
  Before we talk about the social impacts of shutting off electrical service, maybe we should talk about the social impacts of two million acres of forest fires, over a hundred dead, and tens of thousands of people evacuated from their homes?
  - gcb0 7y ago
    That's a very forced comparison. If you took that seriously yourself, you had to weight having a driver's license against the thousands of people run over by cars each year, because by your logic consequences of a bad case are inherent to all the cases! The social impact is about the cost of doing it properly or not. Not doing it in a way that causes fires, that is something else.
WalterBright 7y ago
If an area is ready to burn, it's going to burn sooner or later from one thing or another. Going after the power company seems like the wrong solution?
nraynaud 7y ago
does anyone has a long technical read on the issue? how the fires start, why cutting the trees next to the line is not enough, etc.?
giorgioz 7y ago
I was suggesting to invest in solar panels but then I remembered that actually 99% of solar panels setups still require the grid to work in order to work :(
jdsully 7y ago
This seems to be more like a negotiating position. With the liability laws the way they are I don't see any way for private power delivery to be economical. When the costs of a single fire are in the billions only a government can insure that sort of risk.
jrs95 7y ago
All I've learned from this thread is that a good portion of HN hates rural America. Apparently the privilege that comes from being well educated and working in tech isn't worth "checking" although I'm sure a lot of you would love to complain about how straight and white they are too. Who cares if a lot of them are poor, just cut off their power.
dfeojm-zlib 7y ago
I am currently in a mostly burned-out, warzone-looking Paradise (nearly all other houses around burned, and many tall trees have been resource-exploited removed without recompensing property owners) when PG&E cut the power at 9 pm last night and only restored it around 3 pm today. It seems like safety virtue-signaling because ground foilage is still green, humidity isn't low, wind isn't high and the temperature will be hotter in the next few days. If anything, it will happen again. As an aside, all hardware stores in Chico were out of generators; we had to go to Red Bluff to pick one up. Should've done it sooner, proactively but I'm having to care for a disabled family member.

So if the utility is on the line for wildfire costs regardless, then here's a thought: maybe they'll do the economically rational thing and "accidentally" trigger smaller fires every so often.

BillinghamJ 7y ago

So it sounds like because they've been held liable for presumably setting up their power lines in an unsafe manner, they're turning off the lines rather than, yanno, fixing the problem. Hopefully have delivered some chunky UPSes and decent support SLAs to those with medical equipment. Could see this backfiring if eg people start using lots of generators instead...

CydeWeys 7y ago
The dark side of this is, what if it's not economical at all to service these outlying customers? What if the cost of retrofitting those lines is greater than the total future amortized profit from servicing those customers during wildfire conditions? I don't think there's a law on the books requiring that everyone have access to electrical service (like there is for, say, USPS service). Maybe beefy solar setups with battery banks and ability to run off-grid will start becoming the norm there. It is California, after all; it's a great place for solar. Heck, it might easily be cheaper for PG&E to subsidize the installation of these systems vs committing to maintaining all those lines properly in perpetuity.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- chroem- 7y ago
  >I don't think there's a law on the books requiring that everyone have access to electrical service As far as I'm aware, that's the main point of having a regulated power utility. They have to deliver universal service.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Do they though? If I build a new house in the middle of nowhere, is the utility required to spend tens of millions of dollars to build out new infrastructure to serve just me? My understanding is they aren't.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Without looking up the specific California laws, a typical way such obligations were implemented was to require regulatory approval for discontinuing existing lines. So it’s not symmetric for new versus existing lines.
      - azernik 7y ago
        Assuming one were interested in looking up such laws, how would one go about it? I've been poking away at the Google machine with no luck.
    - dillonmckay 7y ago
      We are talking about incorporated townships, though. So, more like an organized group of users in the middle of nowhere, but do have rights as a recognized municipality of the state.
    - ghouse 7y ago
      If you want electricity, you may be required to pay them to extend the infrastructure to your house in the middle of nowhere (at your cost) and then they are required to provide you power and maintain the infrastructure (and assume the liability). If other people begin using the infrastructure within a set period of time, you will receive partial refund for the upfront expense.
- lacker 7y ago
  What if it's not economical at all to service these outlying customers? This is almost definitely the case. Consider that PG+E just went bankrupt from fire costs. If you split PG+E into two parts, the "safe utility" that served urban areas, and the "risky utility" that served rural areas, the fire costs would almost all go to the "risky utility". If they were allowed to, PG+E would be better off simply dropping every customer more than 60 miles away from San Francisco. But it just doesn't work that way. PG+E is technically a public company, but the customers they are required to serve and the prices they are allowed to charge are so heavily regulated, it often seems more like it's a complicated extension of the California government.
  - njarboe 7y ago
    Pretty much all of California urban areas have fire danger so no area is really "safe". The Santa Rosa and Oakland fires come to mind, along with all of the LA hill blazes that threaten the city most years.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The dark side of this is, what if it's not economical at all to service these outlying customers? PG&E is a regulated regional monopoly with a universal service mandate within it's service area that has huge piles of money to throw at political fights to stop having public power retailers take over some of it's service areas, so it can just suck up the cost of dealing with uneconomical rural customers as the cost of the privilege of being allowed to own profitable urban and suburban customers it is willing to fight for.
  - chewbacha 7y ago
    > has huge piles of money Do you have evidence for this? I assumed going bankrupt is a pretty large piece of evidence against this argument.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      The piles of money they've pulled out for exactly that purpose whenever it has come up, before and between the two bankruptcies.
- pixl97 7y ago
  Maybe this is just another sign that people should stop building in the wildland urban interface. Not that they will. We as a country feel quite entitled to build in unsafe places.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  > it might easily be cheaper for PG&E to subsidize the installation of these systems vs committing to maintaining all those lines properly in perpetuity. With how liability works in California, I'd be really curious to see.
- tibyat 7y ago
  this was mentioned in the article. they are required to service those areas.
stakhanov 7y ago
The thing about generators was the first thing on my mind as well.
AFascistWorld 7y ago
Is there a way to fix it? Underground lines would be prohibitively expensive.
- Svip 7y ago
  I am genuinely curious why in a rich country like the USA, wires aren't dug down. I realise using my own country - Denmark - is an unfair comparison, since it's much smaller, but all wires leading to houses are dug down here. Even out in the rural countryside. However, even a small state like Rhode Island has plenty of overhead wires, despite being a tenth the size of Denmark. But surely a rich state like California could dig down wires in areas where it would significant benefits. The benefits are everywhere, obviously, but some areas would gain more benefits than others. Can a state/country really be considered rich, if it cannot afford to dig down electric wires?
  - AFascistWorld 7y ago
    Unfortunately, there are too many places demanding money in CA, the Bullet Train, congested roads, teachers, homeless people, housing shortage, solutions to protect houses from wild fires.
  - owenmarshall 7y ago
    Because doing infrastructure well - as opposed to holding it together with bubblegum and bailing wire - means spending money. And every dime spent is one dime less for shareholders. As the saying goes: this suboptimal outcome is a feature, not a bug.
    - lacker 7y ago
      And every dime spent is one dime less for shareholders. Well, PG+E just went bankrupt, so there aren't any dimes left for shareholders anyway. It's not like they're making a huge margin of profit.
    - nostromo95 7y ago
      No that’s not how utilities work. Utilities are compensated for the approved capital they invest in infrastructure in the form of higher customer rates. The upshot of this is that every utility in the country would love nothing more than to underground every overhead line in their service area. The reason this doesn’t happen is because public service commissions, who approve capital plans, aren’t willing to saddle customers with the astronomical costs of undergrounding lines (which runs $2-$3M per mile on distribution, depending on rock content of soil).
rdlecler1 7y ago
The challenge is that they need to run on a budget and so buried cables in a earthquake prone area may have been prohibitively expensive. Not a great situation to be in.
- lacker 7y ago
  The rural area around Paradise isn't very earthquake-prone. It's just pretty large and sprawling, which is what makes burying all those cables so expensive.
  - Trav5 7y ago
    There is also a lot of bedrock.
behringer 7y ago
No doubt the government will take over the operation if they fail to deliver.
lacker 7y ago
There is an important point here. They aren't being held liable for setting up their power lines in an unsafe manner. The way California fire liability works, even if you set up your power lines according to best practices, if your equipment happens to have caused the initial spark that causes a $25 billion fire, then you are liable for that entire amount. For more detail see articles like: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-strict-wildfire-liability-rule-13604239.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-st... It isn't clear that PG+E did anything wrong in maintaining power lines. That just isn't how liability works here. There is always some chance that power lines cause a small fire, and recently the costs of a small fire have grown massively, as it has become more common that a small fire expands into a large fire. PG+E is facing rising costs, and they don't really have many ways to lower fire risk that they haven't already taken. They are not legally allowed to stop serving this area. So they are forced into measures like these. (They also just went bankrupt, so it's not like PG+E investors are making a killing while underserving their customers.)
- amluto 7y ago
  With all due respect to PG&E and the CPUC, no, they did not. The best practice is to install substation equipment that prevents enormous current from flowing through a phase-to-ground fault. Petersen coils and similar devices do this, and they appear to be reasonably widespread in Europe. Heck, suppose PG&E turns off power during high wind events. Do they even have the required equipment to avoid starting a fire if a line fell and is still on the ground after the wind stops when they turn power back on? This type of equipment exists.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    At the same time I've seen non-fallen lines drop sparks to ground level because of a hot spot in the line.
    - amluto 7y ago
      As far as I know, none of the recent fires were started by events like that. The ones a looked up were single phase faults where a line hit something other than a different phase conductor due to wind or mechanical failure. A 90% solution would be an excellent start here.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
Devil's advocate: Utilities are for profit orgs but rates and (kinda) by extension profits are all heavily regulated. You say that they should bury lines or spend a gazillion improving them, but what if the state balks at letting them increase rates to cover expenses? Where should they get the money for that? I guess that building in th middle of nowhere and expecting power at $0.xx kwh and safe power lines in all terrain and weather might be a dream.
cbhl 7y ago
From what I can tell of the notice PG&E sent me in the mail, they're not turning off the lines permanently. They're temporarily turning off the lines for a few days so they can fix the problem (trimming trees near power lines, performing maintenance on substations). By my read, after two consecutive years' of fire lawsuits being judged against PG&E and going bankrupt, someone decided to listen to the engineers and technicians on the ground.

14 7y ago

If I was one of those 27000 customers I would be doing my best to never again be a customer of them. If I had to buy solar, gas generators or a giant hamster wheel powering my stuff I would because cutting off power in this manner for this reason simply is unacceptable in this day and age.

human20190310 7y ago
The utility might be glad to see such customers go away. It may be the case that the utility is providing service in areas it would not choose to serve today, given the fire risk.
lacker 7y ago
That would be fantastic for the utility. PG+E would love to just drop those customers entirely. The cost of fire risk alone is more than they make from this region. They can't because they're legally required to keep delivering power there.
pixl97 7y ago
So you're pissed that you finally have to pay the true cost for your utilities. You've been subsidized for the last 50+ years. It's time to stop subsidizing your sprawl.

skybrian 7y ago

In rural areas, power can go out and stay out for quite a while due to a storm. Cutting power preventatively is new, but it seems like if you should have plans for getting by when the power goes out in any case?

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Rich people have whole house generators and will be mostly unaffected. This is a major PITA to everyone else.
- anonuser123456 7y ago
  A generator is not that expensive.
  - bsder 7y ago
    A generator must be maintained, tested, gasoline drained/conditioned regularly, etc ... Many of the people I know who bought generators have been eyeballing battery storage very heavily. If the situation is so bad that you need your generator more than a week, you probably need to leave and go somewhere else anyway. And batteries are nearing the point where they can do what you need.
- bearjaws 7y ago
  Living in the country side is supposed to be expensive, but for the past 40 years or so all of the population centers of America have been subsidizing rural life. My parents live 30 miles inland in Florida and recently wanted their 5 mile dirt road paved, total cost would have been north of $2,000,000... Even if that was split among everyone living there you are looking at $133,000. Things don't get better once you consider their power lines, at $285,000 per mile you are looking at $95,000 just to run power to their home and all adjacent homes. Then add in water + sewage, at $25.18 per foot, lets say to all the same houses getting power, that is an additional $86,619. You also probably want modern internet connectivity (cable, fiber) you are looking at another $10,000 per household. Assuming there is 5% maintenance per year for all this infrastructure, that is $16,230.95 a year. Meanwhile in a city, the amount each individual is paying is a tiny fraction, probably less than 0.01%. Sure a urban home is probably more expensive, but given that a rural home should incur a near $400,000 premium, you shouldn't have been able to afford that rural home to begin with. America stands to save hundreds of billions if we actually force the cost of living in rural areas to be what it is, rather than subsidize it.

NDizzle 7y ago

My favorite pizza place was affected by this action. I'm about 25 minutes away from the affected area. It's not a very remote location.

Keverw 7y ago

Wow, is this forever or only temporary? I know just a few hours or a day without power is a huge downside for me... Sounds horrible. I guess they are forced to get a solar setup or move somewhere else... Which if no power, probably lowers home values so moving is a hassle. Plus you got to sell your house, finding another house that you like and is comparable, moving your things... Some people live paycheck to paycheck so moving right now would be a huge pain. I got a friend in Florida and we were talking about solar a few years ago. Apparently in Florida if you set up your house for solar and make enough and store it to power everything... You are still legally required to pay the utility company to be hooked up or the county can condemn your house and kick you out. Sure you might end up using zero kilowatt hours, but still, all these other fees tacked on. Also required to get permission and inspection by that same power company too. So the sunshine state isn't friendly to solar, so ironic. I love Florida otherwise though, a bunch of nice places and things to do there. I've been watching some full-time RV and digital nomad YouTubers on and off... Really makes me feel like minimalist and enough solar to be self-sufficient in an RV would be a great lifestyle. If you want to move you just have to put your things away, bring in the awning, slides, jacks then turn the key and go! I figured if I did it I'd try to stay in an area for a week or two though as I think moving every day would be annoying since I'd probably go for a bigger rig more home feeling. Probably private RV parks, national parks, state parks. Some cities and counties also have RV parks to try and attract tourists to their area. so mostly paid options, but then national forests and out west tons of BLM land to boondock on for free, however, some of these agencies do have some paid areas too. Plus I kinda feel like you don't even own your house truly. Some places are so picky you even need a permit to install a doorbell. Then HOAs are even more of a pain, I heard in some if your mailbox paint is chipping the HOA can fine you and even take away your house at some point. At least with RVs, they are considered vehicles instead so the local building code guy has no power unless you are parked someone that disallows RVs. Then I remember hearing about an HOA who was harassing a veteran for flying the American Flag. If you decide to full-time RV since you no longer own a house or rent an apartment you can choose to be a resident in any state friendly to nomads, such as domiciling in South Dakota or Texas which each has their own list of pros and cons. Some people are even forced to change their residence anyways as their former state won't let them use a mail forwarder. Was reading someone who formerly lived in Michigan changed their license and reg online to a mail forwarder located in the state as they wanted to still be residents there, and got a nasty letter with like only 10 days to correct their address or face suspension of their license and registration. I guess in a way RV people are considered homeless even if you have a half a million dollar RV that costs more than the house it's parked in front of. I think states do this also to try to discriminate against homeless people's voting rights too. So forced to change their domicile to another more friendlier state or use a relative address. But I guess if Michigan doesn't want full-time RVers to call them home, oh well as they can lose out on those resident income taxes since they no longer had a job in MI but being a resident still means all income is still taxable there even if they worked in no income tax Texas for a seasonal job they'd still owe back to MI even if they haven't been there in over a year as they still claimed MI as their domicile. At least with South Dakota, you can spend only 1 night there at a hotel, rent a mailbox and be considered a resident. Then can register your car and RV without bringing it with you if you flew there on a short notice as given little choice. SD even allows you to register by mail too unlike some states that require you to physically bring it with you to be inspected. if SD was like that then you'd have to pretty much drive straight to SD before that 10 days was up, hoping you still have time left by time you even got the notice. So if you had to change things on short notice, South Dakota is a perfect state if your former home state you lived your entire life in decides to make you a refugee. So I guess living in an RV would work out if you made enough money remotely or retired... Probably someone who lives in a big city with a 2,000 a month apartment would save a bunch possibly. However, while it has it's pros, there's also cons and challenges too like the whole where do you live on paper. I know people are into van life too, but I don't think I'd be comfortable in a small space, plus people try to just park and sleep wherever for free. Some are successful, some get woken up by the police at 3 AM in the morning. So wouldn't want that stress, rather have an actual RV, and a separate car to explore away from it. For example people with a Class A motorhome tow a car behind such as a Jeep - what people call a "toad" in the RV community. If you went with a travel trailer or fifth wheel, unhook and leave that at camp and drive your SUV, van or pickup around. As you don't want to try and take the big RV to go shopping or checking out local attractions. Get the RV set up and don't move it until your reservation is up. Be a nice lifestyle! I'm not too happy with where I am now, and I feel like there's so much to do and explore around both the US itself and the world even that staying in the same area all your life from birth to death just sounds sad and is depressing. Reading things like this just reminds me of how little control people have. Forced to have only 1 utility for power, for water, maybe 1 or 2 phones, tv and internet providers. Well, some areas 1 cable company, phone company offers fiber-based TV in some areas but of course, there's always around 2 satellite options... but then again some cities and HOAs try to prevent people from using satellite even though that violates the FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices "OTARD" rule. Some don't like how they look I guess, some try to limit the number of dishes, etc. I was randomly searching and found there's a bunch of cities that still have ordinances banning satellite TV completely... I guess due to giving the local cable company a monopoly as they profit from the franchise fees. Probably would win in court though due to the federal law depending on specifics as some restrictions are allowed to be regulated by the locals narrowly written such as not allowing changes to historical houses or drilling holes into the roof of an apartment building would be a no no as you don't own it, etc type of restrictions but still a hassle. You risk getting a misdemeanor criminal record because you didn't like the local cable company. I find satellite TV annoying when the weather is bad, but otherwise, I feel it's a better choice. Like the boxes, UI feels so much faster. As far as I know, Dish makes their own software and hardware, while the cable company just buys an off the shelf box and installs premade Java-based OS called OpenCable. I guess RV you are limiting yourself to satellite tv, and mobile internet plans - which is a whole topic in the RV community itself. Certain providers people recommend, with cell boosters, wifi boosters and repeaters and creating your own internal wifi network yourself... So you can have all your devices connect to your own router and then point it towards a cell modem or repeat the RV's park Wifi. Useful too if you have like a TV, game console, and other devices... Can change the internet connection source without reconnecting them all to that new source individually. Then some people bought a house in a rural area with their own septic system or well. Then when the city or county starts providing water and sewer you are forced to connect to their system instead of being self-sufficient using the existing systems you've already paid for and are maintaining.

bearjaws 7y ago

I am all for utility companies cutting service to rural areas, for cost savings or otherwise. Living in the country side is supposed to be expensive, but for the past 40 years or so all of the population centers of America have been subsidizing rural life. My parents live 30 miles inland in Florida and recently wanted their 5 mile dirt road paved, total cost would have been north of $2,000,000... Even if that was split among everyone living there you are looking at $133,000. Things don't get better once you consider their power lines, at $285,000 per mile you are looking at $95,000 just to run power to their home and all adjacent homes. Then add in water + sewage, at $25.18 per foot, lets say to all the same houses getting power, that is an additional $86,619. You also probably want modern internet connectivity (cable, fiber) you are looking at another $10,000 per household. Assuming there is 5% maintenance per year for all this infrastructure, that is $16,230.95 a year. Meanwhile in a city, the amount each individual is paying is a tiny fraction, probably less than 0.01%. Sure a urban home is probably more expensive, but given that a rural home should incur a near $400,000 premium, you shouldn't have been able to afford that rural home to begin with. America stands to save hundreds of billions if we actually force the cost of living in rural areas to be what it is, rather than subsidize it. People who live in the country side already use wells for water due to the cost of water + sewage, why is it any different for power?

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
And meanwhile, all of these rural services have a greatly increased environmental impact than in urban environment. It sounds harsh, but some of these people will just need to adapt their lifestyles.
fauigerzigerk 7y ago
On the other hand, rents and home prices are already unaffordable in many urban areas. If building infrastructure outside the most densely populated areas becomes a purely private responsibility, it will exacerbate these issues.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  The correct solution to do this problem is to build more cities.

1024core 7y ago

AKA collective punishment for the people.

torpfactory 7y ago

I think this presents an interesting case for permanent "grid defection" in rural areas. The theory goes that as solar panels and battery prices drop, it will eventually make sense for homeowners to produce their own power, and "defect" from the electrical grid completely. Obviously this isn't a perfect solution: for example, the homeowner is now solely responsible for fixing their own power supply issues, instead of the collective "insurance" the grid operator provides by fixing grid issues for customers. I think that rural customers in wildfire prone areas provide one of the best use cases for grid defection. The power company can save money in two ways: by not having to maintain relatively long power lines which serve few customers and by reducing their exposure to liability for wildfire damages. It might even be in the utilities interest to subsidize rural customers defection, to focus on more urban customers. Grid defection relies on low-cost solar and batter technology, and I think we will have both in the next decade. This is something that was not even possible in years past: extending the grid to rural areas was a great example of government sponsored economic equity that market forces alone may not have provided. Two things that would help aid the transition: (1) Holding grid operators liable for wildfire risk (or at least part of it) and (2) forcing rural customers to pay a greater price for their power, reflective of the greater cost to provide it. I know (2) won't be popular but I think it does align some economic incentives correctly. I would also advocate implementing price increases only when solar+battery is very close to grid parity, so customers actually have a reasonable choice.

magnetic 7y ago
> The theory goes that as solar panels and battery prices drop, it will eventually make sense for homeowners to produce their own power, and "defect" from the electrical grid completely. I think it already makes sense in California (given the amount of sun we get). A Tesla solar install of 8 kW solar production + 2 PowerWalls (27 kWh capacity) has a loan payment of $188/month, which is probably lower than what your cost would be from the utility company for an equivalent "level of service". The only tricky part is to figure out the answers to "what size panels + storage do I need so that, given elements (weather mostly), the probability of my storage being depleted any point during the day is less than X%". Solar companies probably already know the answer to this given the data they already have, but the other part of the equation is changes to the owner's consumption (buying an EV? new child on the way? changing your range/dryer/heaters from gas to electric? etc) That's the real pain point (it can be mitigated with a generator, but that gets complicated), which leads to a certain amount of oversizing, and as a consequence, waste (since you can't feed it back to the grid). Also the occasional failure in your own infrastructure could lead to blackouts that could be more frequent than if you were tied to the grid (Mean Time To Repair is higher with your own infrastructure for obvious reasons), although I have to admit that the grid hasn't been very good in that respect. A solar system is generally maintenance free, but failures do happen. Still, I think it's worth it (that's why I took the plunge a few years ago).

ghouse 7y ago

To serve customers in high-risk areas safely, it's much more expensive than to serve customers in low-risk areas. Insulated overhead conductors or buried circuits are expensive. Yet the current regulatory paradigm requires that the customers in both regions pay the same amount for electricity.

gcb0 7y ago

For people thinking like robots on this, and not seeing the social impacts, i suggest reading city of quartz. Or if you don't like to read books, watch Chinatown. Both will show you how the Water & Power's corrupt officials used aqueducts being artificially shut down, and then magically repaired at their convenient timing, to control price of land for their personal riches. Also, that cost is paid by city, yes, because this initial work is what enable news cities to eventually came into existence, offloading the first city superpopulation problems. It is not done out of altruism, like limited mind people like to boast when defending such short sighted measures.

freehunter 7y ago
Before we talk about the social impacts of shutting off electrical service, maybe we should talk about the social impacts of two million acres of forest fires, over a hundred dead, and tens of thousands of people evacuated from their homes?
- gcb0 7y ago
  That's a very forced comparison. If you took that seriously yourself, you had to weight having a driver's license against the thousands of people run over by cars each year, because by your logic consequences of a bad case are inherent to all the cases! The social impact is about the cost of doing it properly or not. Not doing it in a way that causes fires, that is something else.

WalterBright 7y ago

If an area is ready to burn, it's going to burn sooner or later from one thing or another. Going after the power company seems like the wrong solution?

nraynaud 7y ago

does anyone has a long technical read on the issue? how the fires start, why cutting the trees next to the line is not enough, etc.?

giorgioz 7y ago

I was suggesting to invest in solar panels but then I remembered that actually 99% of solar panels setups still require the grid to work in order to work :(

jdsully 7y ago

This seems to be more like a negotiating position. With the liability laws the way they are I don't see any way for private power delivery to be economical. When the costs of a single fire are in the billions only a government can insure that sort of risk.

jrs95 7y ago

All I've learned from this thread is that a good portion of HN hates rural America. Apparently the privilege that comes from being well educated and working in tech isn't worth "checking" although I'm sure a lot of you would love to complain about how straight and white they are too. Who cares if a lot of them are poor, just cut off their power.

dfeojm-zlib 7y ago

I am currently in a mostly burned-out, warzone-looking Paradise (nearly all other houses around burned, and many tall trees have been resource-exploited removed without recompensing property owners) when PG&E cut the power at 9 pm last night and only restored it around 3 pm today. It seems like safety virtue-signaling because ground foilage is still green, humidity isn't low, wind isn't high and the temperature will be hotter in the next few days. If anything, it will happen again. As an aside, all hardware stores in Chico were out of generators; we had to go to Red Bluff to pick one up. Should've done it sooner, proactively but I'm having to care for a disabled family member.