4 ms·

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 ju

by 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.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > They should not be paying out dividends to investors But... but... the power of free markets! The pension funds need safe investments! Sarcasm aside: you are completely correct, but the US infrastructure needs so massive investments that there is no alternative to the private investment market given that many states have problems adequately funding basic cheap stuff such as schools.
  - edoo 7y ago
    This isn't free market. PG&E is a gun backed government monopoly. If the free market was in play this wouldn't be an issue.
    - yabadabadoes 7y ago
      > If the free market was in play this wouldn't be an issue. You should try walking through a city with a freer market for taxis than you are used to. The externality of safety requires a heavily regulated market or you get freelancers and shell companies taking risks beyond their ability to cover.
      - edoo 7y ago
        Are you kidding? Try taking a taxi in a city with a monopoly given to one company. I much prefer freelancers like Uber drivers. You use fear to justify violence.
        mschuster91 7y ago
        > I much prefer freelancers like Uber drivers. People thought that too until they ended up in accidents in their Uber and suddenly discovered the issues arising when travelling in a commercial vehicle with no commercial insurance.
        yabadabadoes 7y ago
        Cheap electricity and convenient transportation for yourself at the cost of everyone else's health, well being and future is something a free market could offer and I'm not sure why you think I denied that. You fail to demonstrate how more of that free market fixes safety problems. If you are suggesting the normal solution, you will end up creating stacks of regulation to force people into "free markets" for services they should buy to offset externalities such as risk to 3rd parties, which will in turn seek ways to create new externalities to cut their costs. That stack of turtles can either collapse under its own weight and need to pay usury rates or not actually address many of the externalities, or both..

by x0x0 7y ago

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.

mschuster91 7y ago
> They should not be paying out dividends to investors But... but... the power of free markets! The pension funds need safe investments! Sarcasm aside: you are completely correct, but the US infrastructure needs so massive investments that there is no alternative to the private investment market given that many states have problems adequately funding basic cheap stuff such as schools.
- edoo 7y ago
  This isn't free market. PG&E is a gun backed government monopoly. If the free market was in play this wouldn't be an issue.
  - yabadabadoes 7y ago
    > If the free market was in play this wouldn't be an issue. You should try walking through a city with a freer market for taxis than you are used to. The externality of safety requires a heavily regulated market or you get freelancers and shell companies taking risks beyond their ability to cover.
    - edoo 7y ago
      Are you kidding? Try taking a taxi in a city with a monopoly given to one company. I much prefer freelancers like Uber drivers. You use fear to justify violence.
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        > I much prefer freelancers like Uber drivers. People thought that too until they ended up in accidents in their Uber and suddenly discovered the issues arising when travelling in a commercial vehicle with no commercial insurance.
      - yabadabadoes 7y ago
        Cheap electricity and convenient transportation for yourself at the cost of everyone else's health, well being and future is something a free market could offer and I'm not sure why you think I denied that. You fail to demonstrate how more of that free market fixes safety problems. If you are suggesting the normal solution, you will end up creating stacks of regulation to force people into "free markets" for services they should buy to offset externalities such as risk to 3rd parties, which will in turn seek ways to create new externalities to cut their costs. That stack of turtles can either collapse under its own weight and need to pay usury rates or not actually address many of the externalities, or both..