3 ms·

They cut trees back as standard maintenance. What I have read is that they reduced these maintenance programs as cost savings measure and this is the result. S

They cut trees back as standard maintenance. What I have read is that they reduced these maintenance programs as cost savings measure and this is the result. Since the company is being held liable for huge amounts due to fires caused by their lack of maintenance the logical business decision for them is to just not provide power when the risk of sparking a fire is too high. It is better for the shareholders to just not provide power than to pay the fines.

XorNot 7y ago
This really sounds like when you start just leveling criminal charges at the board because neither of these options are acceptable.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  And declaring the Directors not "fit and proper persons" If not mandatory nationalisation.
- michaelt 7y ago
  As I understand it, PG&E is a weird situation, as they're a for-profit but heavily regulated monopoly with no competitors. So, in terms of wildfires their options are: 1. Spend their savings on network maintenance. Not possible as they've got zero money having been liable for a bunch of costly wildfires. 2. Stop serving loss-making wilderness customers who need costly-to-maintain cables run through forests. Not possible due to legal service obligation. 3. Raise prices for loss-making customers who need long runs of costly-to-maintain cables. Not possible due to legal regulation of prices. 4. Raise prices for all customers, to pay for better network maintenance. Not possible due to legal regulation of prices. 5. Transfer loss-making customers in fire-prone areas to competitors who can serve them more efficiently. Not possible, as they have no competitors (except much more expensive options like diesel generators) 6. Go out of business. Also seemingly somehow impossible, despite having their finances wiped out by all the wildfires they've caused. 7. Pay for network upgrades/bankruptcy by cutting executive bonuses. Legally possible, and maybe politically popular, but it's nowhere near enough money, and what sort of chump would take a job where their pay depended on solving financial problems with their origins 20 years ago, in political issues outside of their control? 8. Make the problems worse, in the hopes massive outages will motivate politicians to give them cash, let them raise prices, or let them drop customers. Or maybe just nationalise them to put them out of their misery <--- YOU ARE HERE

XorNot 7y ago

This really sounds like when you start just leveling criminal charges at the board because neither of these options are acceptable.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
And declaring the Directors not "fit and proper persons" If not mandatory nationalisation.
michaelt 7y ago
As I understand it, PG&E is a weird situation, as they're a for-profit but heavily regulated monopoly with no competitors. So, in terms of wildfires their options are: 1. Spend their savings on network maintenance. Not possible as they've got zero money having been liable for a bunch of costly wildfires. 2. Stop serving loss-making wilderness customers who need costly-to-maintain cables run through forests. Not possible due to legal service obligation. 3. Raise prices for loss-making customers who need long runs of costly-to-maintain cables. Not possible due to legal regulation of prices. 4. Raise prices for all customers, to pay for better network maintenance. Not possible due to legal regulation of prices. 5. Transfer loss-making customers in fire-prone areas to competitors who can serve them more efficiently. Not possible, as they have no competitors (except much more expensive options like diesel generators) 6. Go out of business. Also seemingly somehow impossible, despite having their finances wiped out by all the wildfires they've caused. 7. Pay for network upgrades/bankruptcy by cutting executive bonuses. Legally possible, and maybe politically popular, but it's nowhere near enough money, and what sort of chump would take a job where their pay depended on solving financial problems with their origins 20 years ago, in political issues outside of their control? 8. Make the problems worse, in the hopes massive outages will motivate politicians to give them cash, let them raise prices, or let them drop customers. Or maybe just nationalise them to put them out of their misery <--- YOU ARE HERE