4 ms·

> And they're not "liable" for cutting power to prevent fires. State granted monopolies must serve the public good. If, as a broadcaster, I just can't manag

> And they're not "liable" for cutting power to prevent fires. State granted monopolies must serve the public good. If, as a broadcaster, I just can't manage to keep our transmitter on -- we're going to lose our license to someone who can. Either PG&E needs to explain why they can't do appropriate line maintenance or needs to have their lines put up for bidding.

kelnos 7y ago
I'm actually a little sympathetic at this point. How can you be expected to spend money fixing problems when the fines and lawsuits in the aftermath of the last crisis have bankrupted you? Obviously ideally they never should have let maintenance get so neglected in the first place, but here we are... how do we get out of this hole? I'm of the opinion that the state should assume ownership of PG&E in exchange for bailout money, just as was done with some banks a decade ago. Use public funds to stop the bleeding and make headway on fixing the problems that caused all this in the first place. If that means drastic leadership changes, so be it. Once PG&E is back on its feet and has proven it can be responsible, the shares owned by the state can be sold back to the public, presumably for a tidy profit. We should also examine the regulatory environment around all this to figure out what contributed to the current state of affairs, and try to set up PG&E's next incarnation for success. Another interesting option could be to strip PG&E for parts, and let smaller municipalities (city, county, region) buy up the infrastructure, take care of repairs (likely with funding support from the state), and run in perpetuity in a more distributed manner. I imagine there are certain efficiencies in having ownership more centralized in theory, but clearly that hasn't worked in CA for decades.
- Pinckney 7y ago
  The houses burned because they were built in the midst of a big pile of tinder. Compensating people for their poor housing decisions is a terrible use of public funds.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    Ah, this old thing. Let's avoid dry areas with wood, places that are susceptible to earthquakes. Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Volcanic activity. Tsunamis. The world is a more complex place than you'd like.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  I'm actually a little sympathetic at this point. How can you be expected to spend money fixing problems when the fines and lawsuits in the aftermath of the last crisis have bankrupted you? How? Pretty easily I suppose, especially if you're blowing your safety budget on executive bonuses. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-money-for-profit-bonuses-2500175.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-...
jaredklewis 7y ago
That's a good point, but I for one don't necessarily think that it is a given that serving power to all people, no matter where they choose to live, is automatically "the public good." If the cost of maintaining and delivering service per capita to less dense areas is too high, it might be in the public good increase prices to those areas or stop service.
ew6082 7y ago
Won't fix the root of the problem, which is that PG&E or its' successors can be held liable by the state for having power equipment running through a forest that's ready to burn at the drop of a hat. What should have been a simple case of Force Majeure has instead turned owning any part of the power grid into the equivalent of owning a minefield.
- campfireveteran 7y ago
  No, you're dead wrong. PG&E conducted unnecessary maintenance at, and/or didn't perform proper maintenance before, the peak of fire danger, causing the Camp Fire and let it get out-of-control. They must be held completely responsible for their intentional negligence and the deaths of 100+ people (only 90 or so were identified, it's likely unknowable how many more were burned to ash because most homes were so completely consumed that only metal remained) who were cremated in their homes. Right now, they're lying about it because money and using the taxpayers to bail them out also because, you guessed it, money. And how'd they get the laws passed in California to give them favorable treatment? You also guessed it: money (in politics). https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/reuters-america-update-2-pge-says-it-strongly-disagrees-delayed-maintenance-played-role-in-camp-fire.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/reuters-america-update-2-pge... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bankruptcy-pg-e-idUSKCN1LH37B https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bankruptcy-pg-e-idUSKCN1L... These power-cuts are safety theater, virtue-signaling tokenism. More people will die from lack of air conditioning, medical device power and lack of communication during emergencies than will be "saved" from these pointless, alert-fatigue-inducing CYA/retribution power-cuts. PS: Printed in Paradise, CA on recycled electrons. I'm still chipping away at the remnants of a blue wheelie bin that melted and burned into a puddle/ring on aggregate concrete. Oh and insurance wouldn't pay to replace dirt which became toxic below what was shed... more socialized costs, $600 just for that.

kelnos 7y ago

I'm actually a little sympathetic at this point. How can you be expected to spend money fixing problems when the fines and lawsuits in the aftermath of the last crisis have bankrupted you? Obviously ideally they never should have let maintenance get so neglected in the first place, but here we are... how do we get out of this hole? I'm of the opinion that the state should assume ownership of PG&E in exchange for bailout money, just as was done with some banks a decade ago. Use public funds to stop the bleeding and make headway on fixing the problems that caused all this in the first place. If that means drastic leadership changes, so be it. Once PG&E is back on its feet and has proven it can be responsible, the shares owned by the state can be sold back to the public, presumably for a tidy profit. We should also examine the regulatory environment around all this to figure out what contributed to the current state of affairs, and try to set up PG&E's next incarnation for success. Another interesting option could be to strip PG&E for parts, and let smaller municipalities (city, county, region) buy up the infrastructure, take care of repairs (likely with funding support from the state), and run in perpetuity in a more distributed manner. I imagine there are certain efficiencies in having ownership more centralized in theory, but clearly that hasn't worked in CA for decades.

Pinckney 7y ago
The houses burned because they were built in the midst of a big pile of tinder. Compensating people for their poor housing decisions is a terrible use of public funds.
- kelnos 7y ago
  Ah, this old thing. Let's avoid dry areas with wood, places that are susceptible to earthquakes. Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Volcanic activity. Tsunamis. The world is a more complex place than you'd like.
inferiorhuman 7y ago
I'm actually a little sympathetic at this point. How can you be expected to spend money fixing problems when the fines and lawsuits in the aftermath of the last crisis have bankrupted you? How? Pretty easily I suppose, especially if you're blowing your safety budget on executive bonuses. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-money-for-profit-bonuses-2500175.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-...

jaredklewis 7y ago

That's a good point, but I for one don't necessarily think that it is a given that serving power to all people, no matter where they choose to live, is automatically "the public good." If the cost of maintaining and delivering service per capita to less dense areas is too high, it might be in the public good increase prices to those areas or stop service.

ew6082 7y ago

Won't fix the root of the problem, which is that PG&E or its' successors can be held liable by the state for having power equipment running through a forest that's ready to burn at the drop of a hat. What should have been a simple case of Force Majeure has instead turned owning any part of the power grid into the equivalent of owning a minefield.

campfireveteran 7y ago
No, you're dead wrong. PG&E conducted unnecessary maintenance at, and/or didn't perform proper maintenance before, the peak of fire danger, causing the Camp Fire and let it get out-of-control. They must be held completely responsible for their intentional negligence and the deaths of 100+ people (only 90 or so were identified, it's likely unknowable how many more were burned to ash because most homes were so completely consumed that only metal remained) who were cremated in their homes. Right now, they're lying about it because money and using the taxpayers to bail them out also because, you guessed it, money. And how'd they get the laws passed in California to give them favorable treatment? You also guessed it: money (in politics). https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/reuters-america-update-2-pge-says-it-strongly-disagrees-delayed-maintenance-played-role-in-camp-fire.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/reuters-america-update-2-pge... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bankruptcy-pg-e-idUSKCN1LH37B https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bankruptcy-pg-e-idUSKCN1L... These power-cuts are safety theater, virtue-signaling tokenism. More people will die from lack of air conditioning, medical device power and lack of communication during emergencies than will be "saved" from these pointless, alert-fatigue-inducing CYA/retribution power-cuts. PS: Printed in Paradise, CA on recycled electrons. I'm still chipping away at the remnants of a blue wheelie bin that melted and burned into a puddle/ring on aggregate concrete. Oh and insurance wouldn't pay to replace dirt which became toxic below what was shed... more socialized costs, $600 just for that.