6 ms·

While PG&E is definitely at fault here, I feel California deserves this type of treatment. With the extremely stringent regulations which place PG&E at risk for

While PG&E is definitely at fault here, I feel California deserves this type of treatment. With the extremely stringent regulations which place PG&E at risk for massive fines/penalty for wildfires even if they take all possible precautions, this is the logical outcome of a company trying to stay afloat.

throwaway5752 7y ago
Sorry, if it's not PG&E it will be some guy with a cigarette, drunk campers, or lightning. The root cause of this is hotter temperatures than the area is adapted to. They're up 3 deg F over average and rising. It's killing trees with drought paired with hotter fires than the native trees evolved to tolerate. I don't mean to be gloomy but this is the just the beginning, it's getting much worse.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  Blaming climate change as the root cause of these fires is to completely ignore the fundamental nature of California.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
  Yeah, but that guy doesn't have the liability (judgement proof)
- trimbo 7y ago
  Or a pyromaniac who flies here from Missouri :( https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/26/freddie-graham-missouri-starts-fires-california-bay-area/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/26/freddie-graham-mi...
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Droughts are nothing new to California. The worst droughts were in the 30s, 70s and 80s: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-retrospective-20150413-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-re... But also, there's fossil evidence of 200 year droughts in California: https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-pa...
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  Is it though? That area is naturally a bundle of kindling. It's part of the lifecycle to burn, flourish, then burn again. It's us grumpy humans who moved in and sought to control it who are the problem. If you live there, your infrastructure should be impervious to fire. Nothing less. Let it burn!
x0x0 7y ago
I don't know why you're on here saying nonsense, but PG&E's behavior before the fires is as far as you can imagine from "all possible precautions". see, for just one example, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/tower-pge-safety-culture-camp-fire.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/tower-pge-safety-cultu... I think most of California understands that no system with hundreds of thousands of miles of equipment can be perfectly safe. However, from San Bruno, caused by faulty welds on installation [1], to continuing to use ancient equipment, there is plenty of room for safety increases. And PG&E is hardly struggling to stay afloat; they recorded over $0.5B of profit 18q3 [2]. Had they not twice burned down swaths of California, along with blowing up the odd city, they would be a nicely profitable company today. [1] https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/01/21/federal-investigators-cite-defective-welds-in-san-bruno-blast/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/01/21/federal-investigator... [2] https://m.sfgate.com/business/article/PG-E-profit-rises-to-564-million-for-quarter-13363879.php https://m.sfgate.com/business/article/PG-E-profit-rises-to-5...
- product50 7y ago
  I think what you don't get is that in a state the size of California, ancient and faulty equipments is part of the course. Not everything can be sparkling new w/o incurring massive costs. Also, even then California regulations will fault PG&E for any fire they may have caused despite them taking all possible precautions (including replacing old equipments). California burning down has been occurring for centuries - PG&E or not. Now what is happening is that real people are suffering because of no electricity since PG&E is doing the most logical thing it should have done even 2 yrs back.
  - x0x0 7y ago
    Again, nonsense. We can maintain things. PG&E has been ruled not at fault for eg Tubbs.
- kelnos 7y ago
  > And PG&E is hardly struggling to stay afloat; they recorded over $0.5B of profit 18q3. Had they not twice burned down swaths of California, along with blowing up the odd city, they would be a nicely profitable company today. Which is, IMO, part of the problem. A utility should not be a profit-seeking corporation. They should not be paying out dividends to investors. Aside from money set aside for an unexpected emergency, they should not have profits whatsoever; every penny should be reinvested into the system.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> With the extremely stringent regulations which place PG&E at risk for massive fines/penalty for wildfires even if they take all possible precautions, this is the logical outcome of a company trying to stay afloat. No, as noted in April by the judge overseeing PG&E’s criminal probation for it's culpability in causing the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion (probation of which it's role on the 2018 fires was ruled to be a violation), it's a result of the company knowingly maintaining an inadequate tree trimming budget while pumping out $4.5 billion to shareholders in dividends.

throwaway5752 7y ago

Sorry, if it's not PG&E it will be some guy with a cigarette, drunk campers, or lightning. The root cause of this is hotter temperatures than the area is adapted to. They're up 3 deg F over average and rising. It's killing trees with drought paired with hotter fires than the native trees evolved to tolerate. I don't mean to be gloomy but this is the just the beginning, it's getting much worse.

newnewpdro 7y ago
Blaming climate change as the root cause of these fires is to completely ignore the fundamental nature of California.
WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
Yeah, but that guy doesn't have the liability (judgement proof)
trimbo 7y ago
Or a pyromaniac who flies here from Missouri :( https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/26/freddie-graham-missouri-starts-fires-california-bay-area/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/26/freddie-graham-mi...
chrisco255 7y ago
Droughts are nothing new to California. The worst droughts were in the 30s, 70s and 80s: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-retrospective-20150413-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-re... But also, there's fossil evidence of 200 year droughts in California: https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-pa...
abstractbarista 7y ago
Is it though? That area is naturally a bundle of kindling. It's part of the lifecycle to burn, flourish, then burn again. It's us grumpy humans who moved in and sought to control it who are the problem. If you live there, your infrastructure should be impervious to fire. Nothing less. Let it burn!

x0x0 7y ago

I don't know why you're on here saying nonsense, but PG&E's behavior before the fires is as far as you can imagine from "all possible precautions". see, for just one example, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/tower-pge-safety-culture-camp-fire.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/tower-pge-safety-cultu... I think most of California understands that no system with hundreds of thousands of miles of equipment can be perfectly safe. However, from San Bruno, caused by faulty welds on installation [1], to continuing to use ancient equipment, there is plenty of room for safety increases. And PG&E is hardly struggling to stay afloat; they recorded over $0.5B of profit 18q3 [2]. Had they not twice burned down swaths of California, along with blowing up the odd city, they would be a nicely profitable company today. [1] https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/01/21/federal-investigators-cite-defective-welds-in-san-bruno-blast/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/01/21/federal-investigator... [2] https://m.sfgate.com/business/article/PG-E-profit-rises-to-564-million-for-quarter-13363879.php https://m.sfgate.com/business/article/PG-E-profit-rises-to-5...

product50 7y ago
I think what you don't get is that in a state the size of California, ancient and faulty equipments is part of the course. Not everything can be sparkling new w/o incurring massive costs. Also, even then California regulations will fault PG&E for any fire they may have caused despite them taking all possible precautions (including replacing old equipments). California burning down has been occurring for centuries - PG&E or not. Now what is happening is that real people are suffering because of no electricity since PG&E is doing the most logical thing it should have done even 2 yrs back.
- x0x0 7y ago
  Again, nonsense. We can maintain things. PG&E has been ruled not at fault for eg Tubbs.
kelnos 7y ago
> And PG&E is hardly struggling to stay afloat; they recorded over $0.5B of profit 18q3. Had they not twice burned down swaths of California, along with blowing up the odd city, they would be a nicely profitable company today. Which is, IMO, part of the problem. A utility should not be a profit-seeking corporation. They should not be paying out dividends to investors. Aside from money set aside for an unexpected emergency, they should not have profits whatsoever; every penny should be reinvested into the system.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> With the extremely stringent regulations which place PG&E at risk for massive fines/penalty for wildfires even if they take all possible precautions, this is the logical outcome of a company trying to stay afloat. No, as noted in April by the judge overseeing PG&E’s criminal probation for it's culpability in causing the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion (probation of which it's role on the 2018 fires was ruled to be a violation), it's a result of the company knowingly maintaining an inadequate tree trimming budget while pumping out $4.5 billion to shareholders in dividends.