4 ms·

Exactly, the question we should all be asking is how it got to this point. I reckon you'll find a lot to blame with both the utilities and state government, and

by aodin 7y ago

Exactly, the question we should all be asking is how it got to this point. I reckon you'll find a lot to blame with both the utilities and state government, and the existing incentives for both. However, to your point about LADWP, I think you're making an overeager classification. It's not a matter of being "geographic adjacent", but being liable for the infrastructure that would start wildfires in at-risk regions. Take a look at the difference in coverage areas of Californias utilities: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/serviceareas/Electric_Service_Areas_Detail.pdf https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/serviceareas/Electric_Service... edit: it is tangential to this issue, but LADWP does not have a very glamorous history, either.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
Exactly, the question we should all be asking is how it got to this point. I reckon you'll find a lot to blame with both the utilities and state government, and the existing incentives for both. No this is solely PG&E's doing. When you write the regulations, you own the blame. PG&E claims it's too expensive to underground its transmission lines (which would prevent fires like these) at a bit over a million per mile. Meanwhile they took blew their safety budget on executive bonuses. You want to tell me that undergrounding around 100 miles of lines isn't going to reduce the risk of fires? How about undergrounding 500 miles? Because in addition to the safety budget, PG&E also spends around $400 million annually on stock buybacks. I don't particularly care if PG&E remains a private company, but there need to be consequences like jail time for actions that go far beyond mere negligence.
- aodin 7y ago
  You're arguing against a straw man. I agree with you: PG&E has acted terribly. The attempted executive bonuses (currently being denied by a court) and stock buybacks ($250MM in F'18, $395MM in F'17, and $968MM in F'16) are especially egregious. The company should no longer exist. But PG&E are not the only offenders here. You seem to be arguing that there's regulatory capture (correct me if I'm wrong), but the Public Utilities Commission still exists, and they have the authority to regulate PG&E. If the commission is neglecting its duties, then it should be restructured as well. A president of the commission has been forced out before, and it should probably be done again. If they neglected such an obvious case of greed and mismanagement because of bribery (sorry, lobbying), that should be a criminal case, too. Public officials can throw PG&E under the bus all they want, but if systematic changes aren't made, we'll be doing this song and dance again in a few years with a different utility.

by aodin 7y ago

inferiorhuman 7y ago

Exactly, the question we should all be asking is how it got to this point. I reckon you'll find a lot to blame with both the utilities and state government, and the existing incentives for both. No this is solely PG&E's doing. When you write the regulations, you own the blame. PG&E claims it's too expensive to underground its transmission lines (which would prevent fires like these) at a bit over a million per mile. Meanwhile they took blew their safety budget on executive bonuses. You want to tell me that undergrounding around 100 miles of lines isn't going to reduce the risk of fires? How about undergrounding 500 miles? Because in addition to the safety budget, PG&E also spends around $400 million annually on stock buybacks. I don't particularly care if PG&E remains a private company, but there need to be consequences like jail time for actions that go far beyond mere negligence.

aodin 7y ago
You're arguing against a straw man. I agree with you: PG&E has acted terribly. The attempted executive bonuses (currently being denied by a court) and stock buybacks ($250MM in F'18, $395MM in F'17, and $968MM in F'16) are especially egregious. The company should no longer exist. But PG&E are not the only offenders here. You seem to be arguing that there's regulatory capture (correct me if I'm wrong), but the Public Utilities Commission still exists, and they have the authority to regulate PG&E. If the commission is neglecting its duties, then it should be restructured as well. A president of the commission has been forced out before, and it should probably be done again. If they neglected such an obvious case of greed and mismanagement because of bribery (sorry, lobbying), that should be a criminal case, too. Public officials can throw PG&E under the bus all they want, but if systematic changes aren't made, we'll be doing this song and dance again in a few years with a different utility.