3 ms·

> The company, which is facing $30 billion in liabilities from recent wildfires started by its equipment Conspiracy theory (which is shared by everyone I've ta

> The company, which is facing $30 billion in liabilities from recent wildfires started by its equipment Conspiracy theory (which is shared by everyone I've talked to): PG&E turned off the power to make a political statement that they shouldn't be liable for wildfires. Edit: by "not be liable", I mean passing legislation to achieve this.

cagenut 7y ago
That is pointlessly over-dramatizing a clear and obvious fact. They went from risk tolerant to risk averse because the liability math changed. There's no conspiracy, its the simple difference between "not my problem" and "cover your ass".
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The liability math didn't change. Decades of pretending that liability didn't exist just caught up with them.
  - pascalxus 7y ago
    the math changed because they were sued for something that should've been acceptable risk. So now it's unacceptable risk. What goes around, comes around.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      They were known to be taking money from tree and line maintenance for profit and compensation purposes back in the 90s.
    - joe_the_user 7y ago
      They didn't wind-up liable because arcing electricity just happens to sometimes 'cause fire. They wound-up liable because they gutted their tree-trimming operations and paid the difference in dividends. That is something that definitely makes you liable regardless of whether the original thing is an acceptable risk. Now, it's hard to if this is indeed a "bail us out or we'll shut down at every strong breeze" statement or whether they are legitimately worried the lines they neglected actually now ignite at every strong breeze. Either way, I think the average Californian justifiably hates this company. But it seems unlikely things will change.
      - mlyle 7y ago
        > They didn't wind-up liable because just happens to sometimes 'cause fire. California is a strict liability state when it comes to utility line fires: even if the utility isn't negligent, the utility must pay damages. > They wound-up liable because they gutted their tree-trimming operations and paid the difference in dividends. This is open to debate; it might be good evidence of negligence. But evidence of negligence doesn't matter.
      - makomk 7y ago
        The Camp Fire, which is the one that looks likely to bankrupt them, probably wasn't even caused by inadequate tree trimming. Apparently one of their power lines had a weak, defective fixing which failed due to the same high winds that caused the fire to spread so rapidly and uncontrollably.
        joe_the_user 7y ago
        Uh, it seems obvious that the question is not tree trimming in particular but maintenance generally. The gas explosion the killed thirty people might hypothetically have been just an accident but logic, rules-of-thumb and actual evidence available all pointed to it being a problem of inadequate PG&E maintenance. Assuming the cause was a defective power line, maybe it was totally an accident but it seems unlikely in the scheme of things - most likely it was part of their pattern of negligence. Edit: Note, the Camp Fire has bankrupted them. They are bankrupt, in bankruptcy proceedings. They are also on criminal (not civil) probation. None of this stopped their stock from rising after the recent events - where a more naive me might expect their stock holders' money would be forfeit once they reached the level of bankruptcy (unsecured debtors and all).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- duaoebg 7y ago
  It's a well known business strategy, run something important into the ground, get bailed out, rinse and repeat. Many companies are run badly on purpose.
  - moneytide1 7y ago
    Being down voted does not mean you're wrong. It just means society doesn't like that concept...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adrr 7y ago
Risk of transmission and distribution lines snapping or having trees fall into them starts at wind speeds of 55mph. Area had 77MPH gusts which would have brought down some lines which could have started a fire. Combine that with abnormal amount of rain during spring which increased fuel levels and extremely dry weather(Single digit humidity levels), it was probably the right thing to do.

cagenut 7y ago

That is pointlessly over-dramatizing a clear and obvious fact. They went from risk tolerant to risk averse because the liability math changed. There's no conspiracy, its the simple difference between "not my problem" and "cover your ass".

ceejayoz 7y ago
The liability math didn't change. Decades of pretending that liability didn't exist just caught up with them.
- pascalxus 7y ago
  the math changed because they were sued for something that should've been acceptable risk. So now it's unacceptable risk. What goes around, comes around.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    They were known to be taking money from tree and line maintenance for profit and compensation purposes back in the 90s.
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    They didn't wind-up liable because arcing electricity just happens to sometimes 'cause fire. They wound-up liable because they gutted their tree-trimming operations and paid the difference in dividends. That is something that definitely makes you liable regardless of whether the original thing is an acceptable risk. Now, it's hard to if this is indeed a "bail us out or we'll shut down at every strong breeze" statement or whether they are legitimately worried the lines they neglected actually now ignite at every strong breeze. Either way, I think the average Californian justifiably hates this company. But it seems unlikely things will change.
    - mlyle 7y ago
      > They didn't wind-up liable because just happens to sometimes 'cause fire. California is a strict liability state when it comes to utility line fires: even if the utility isn't negligent, the utility must pay damages. > They wound-up liable because they gutted their tree-trimming operations and paid the difference in dividends. This is open to debate; it might be good evidence of negligence. But evidence of negligence doesn't matter.
    - makomk 7y ago
      The Camp Fire, which is the one that looks likely to bankrupt them, probably wasn't even caused by inadequate tree trimming. Apparently one of their power lines had a weak, defective fixing which failed due to the same high winds that caused the fire to spread so rapidly and uncontrollably.
      - joe_the_user 7y ago
        Uh, it seems obvious that the question is not tree trimming in particular but maintenance generally. The gas explosion the killed thirty people might hypothetically have been just an accident but logic, rules-of-thumb and actual evidence available all pointed to it being a problem of inadequate PG&E maintenance. Assuming the cause was a defective power line, maybe it was totally an accident but it seems unlikely in the scheme of things - most likely it was part of their pattern of negligence. Edit: Note, the Camp Fire has bankrupted them. They are bankrupt, in bankruptcy proceedings. They are also on criminal (not civil) probation. None of this stopped their stock from rising after the recent events - where a more naive me might expect their stock holders' money would be forfeit once they reached the level of bankruptcy (unsecured debtors and all).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
duaoebg 7y ago
It's a well known business strategy, run something important into the ground, get bailed out, rinse and repeat. Many companies are run badly on purpose.
- moneytide1 7y ago
  Being down voted does not mean you're wrong. It just means society doesn't like that concept...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

adrr 7y ago

Risk of transmission and distribution lines snapping or having trees fall into them starts at wind speeds of 55mph. Area had 77MPH gusts which would have brought down some lines which could have started a fire. Combine that with abnormal amount of rain during spring which increased fuel levels and extremely dry weather(Single digit humidity levels), it was probably the right thing to do.