12 ms·
PG&E Says It Could Impose Blackouts in California for a Decade
- CameronNemo 7y agoHit the paywall.
- meritt 7y agohttp://archive.is/ra9UL http://archive.is/ra9UL
- CameronNemo 7y agoDNS
- jitl 7y agoIt should be nationalized so they can fix the problem instead of optimizing for bankruptcy liability or whatever.
- TaylorAlexander 7y agoOr perhaps a customer owned cooperative.
- rosybox 7y agoSacramento has that, it's called SMUD. I don't know if it's any better. Are they keeping their lines and equipment free of tree branches? Are they having power outages? Are they blowing up neighborhoods?
- TaylorAlexander 7y agoYeah in all seriousness I like that structure for other reasons, but it’s not necessarily more likely to force foresight and proper maintenance. Government oversight and/or insurance companies should be enforcing fire safety here.
- aerostable_slug 7y agoIt's not really appropriate to compare any of the California municipal utilities to something like PG&E — SMUD isn't tiny, but they have a fraction of the T&D infrastructure of PG&E. Fair comparisons would be to San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. Both have had selective power shutoffs in the recent wind. Also, note that SCE did not power down some lines and it appears their equipment caused a wildfire: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-18/saddleridge-fire-renews-debate-on-utilities-opaque-process-for-ordering-power-outages https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-18/saddleri... SDG&E has been using public safety power shutoffs for some time, and has a pretty good system of sectionalizers to make the outage areas more granular than PG&E's. That said, they don't have anywhere near the T&D infrastructure of PG&E.
- vnchr 7y agoOn behalf of the rest of the nation, no thank you. What are options for Californians to communicate concerns to state and local legislators?
- CameronNemo 7y agoThe Public Utilities Commission is most directly responsible for these matters. Just need to trace an elected official to there.
- aerostable_slug 7y agoThe primary regulator is the California Public Utilities Commission, whose leadership consists of five governor-appointed commissioners. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Contactus/ https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Contactus/ https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov40mail/ https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov40mail/
- bhl 7y agoNot sure how nationalization would help. PG&E has a state monopoly right? What if we went in the opposite direction and allowed smaller companies in to start competing, like what we have with ISPs?
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoMost ISPs aren't able to start wildfires. What you'd get is a bunch of small companies competing. And, human nature being what it is, at least some of them would scrimp on maintenance and tree trimming, and hope that they'd continue to be lucky. And some of those wouldn't be lucky, and you'd still get fires. The difference would be that when Billy Bob's Power Company set off a multi-billion-dollar fire, it would just fold. Sally Sue's Power Company would buy up their assets (but not their liabilities) for pennies on the dollar, and you'd be left hoping that Sally Sue did better at maintenance than Billy Bob.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rubyn00bie 7y agoYou can vote out elected officials, it forces transparency, and also has the bonus of a government multiplier[1], you can't do that with the C-levels of PG&E and a private company. Additionally, and I think this is non-debatable in the USA (though I'm up for debate, and to be wrong), C-levels have their primary and sole obligation to shareholders. When push comes to shove, and tough decisions need to be made, in the USA it is always in the interest of shareholders unless mandated by the government. Sometimes better businesses push for that mandate, so they can remain competitive and not be flaming piles of shit unable to compete... [2]. PG&E executives, right now, can use this (shareholder returns) as disguise for moral ineptitude in their social circles allowing them to escape ridicule as monsters. No amount of competition will fix these problems and incentivize the correct behaviour for a _utility_ as long as they're obligated to return dividends before moral decency. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier#United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier#United_State... [2] This is also a vector for abuse by monopolies and oligopolies; where, they lobby for regulation which creates a barrier to entry (in the market) insurmountable to new organizations and institutions.
- Pinckney 7y agoDo you think taxpayers ought to be on the hook when a state-run electric company burns down a town, or should California invoke sovereign immunity when that happens?
- oldgradstudent 7y agoThey're on the hook anyway. Be it with rate increases or with discharging of debts in bankruptcy. At least elected officials can be replaced.
- Aloha 7y agoThey of course would be, if they were held to the same standard as PG&E.
- gigatexal 7y agoWhat government run entities are well managed? The federal government runs a deficit every year. State schools are always screaming for more funding and yet US children lag behind the world in math. The same incentives that exist while private will exist if public: avoid punishment and avoid losing your job at all costs because it’s just a simple infrastructure company with a monopoly to be a utility.
- thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago> What government run entities are well managed? The National Park Service. > The federal government runs a deficit every year. There are many reasons for that, but it doesn't matter in deciding who should control California's power system. > State schools are always screaming for more funding and yet US children lag behind the world in math. Change "and yet" to "because" and I'm right there with you. > The same incentives that exist while private will exist if public: avoid punishment and avoid losing your job at all costs because it’s just a simple infrastructure company with a monopoly to be a utility. A publicly traded company is legal bound to motives ulterior to what is best for the people of California.
- pbreit 7y agoI never quite understood what the purpose of the blacking out was?
- Baeocystin 7y agoReduction of legal liability in case of fire.
- nickodell 7y agoOr, less cynically, reduction of the number of fires.
- nullc 7y agoPG&E posted pictures of quite a few down lines in areas they cut power to. It's pretty credible that that blackouts actually prevented fires.
- prewett 7y agohttps://kfbk.iheart.com/featured/sacramentos-latest-news/content/2019-10-16-pge-issues-pictures-of-trees-on-power-lines-to-prove-outage-was-justified/ https://kfbk.iheart.com/featured/sacramentos-latest-news/con... Brief article, has link to a PDF with 12 actual pictures in various counties.
- Baeocystin 7y agoIf they were genuinely motivated by safety concerns, they would take line maintenance and brush removal seriously. They don't. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-knew-for-years-its-lines-could-spark-wildfires-and-didnt-fix-them-11562768885 https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-knew-for-years-its-lines-c...
- millstone 7y agoIt was to soften up Californians in preparation for a legislative push towards insulating PG&E from liability.
- anonu 7y agoSo you blame a private company for sparking a wildfire which isn't really under their control. What do you expect them to do?
- ajross 7y agoPG&E equipment is believed to have started multiple fires, including the Camp fire. I don't understand your usage of "under their control".
- adrianmonk 7y agoThey were the proximate cause but not the ultimate cause. When the state is that dry, something is going to start a fire sooner or later, and when it does, it's going to be bad. They are basically being penalized for being the straw that broke the camel's back. Probably better maintenance would have helped some, but it's not like they bear all the blame for the destruction caused by the fire.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- yokaze 7y agoI would accept that argument if it happened once, but alas it didn't. While anyone can start a wildfire, they are a large actor, which causes them. They make profit and could invest money to reduce their part in it, but as long that is an external cost, there is no economic motivation. That's not penalisation, it's economics.
- Felz 7y agoI think implicit in PG&E's decision to neglect maintenance was that they weren't allowed to raise rates and it wouldn't actually be very economical to do maintenance to reduce wildfire risks, so shareholders preferred profits were returned to them rather than reinvestment into e.g. maintenance. So adding the "motivation" to reduce wildfires might've made them more likely.
- greesil 7y agoThere's a drinking joke in here somewhere. My question is if it's cheaper to fire-proof everyone's house, or to have everyone go and buy solar for their properties, or to just accept some people and properties are going to burn in a fiery inferno from time to time. A quick Google shows that there were $7B in insurance claims for the Camp Fire. At $15K per install of solar, that's ~500k homes. Apparently fire-proofing a house has similar costs. There are something like 7M homes in California. Many of those are in urban areas, so let's say there are 2M in fire-prone areas. It actually seems worthwhile to just pay for the upgrades.
- CameronNemo 7y agoWe can take lessons from flood insurance. Efforts to subsidize can distort incentives such that homes are rebuilt in flood zones. I really hope PG&E can cut down the time needed for these outages.
- economics93 7y agoWe can take lessons from physics: economics are nothing more than the ideology of politically advantaged humans. We’re under no political obligation to keep enabling the private control of our collectively built and maintained communities. When do the hand outs to these screw ups stop?
- carty76ers 7y ago> economics are nothing more than the ideology of politically advantaged humans. “Nothing more” is quite a serious stretch that you won’t be able to prove, and that destroys the rest of your argument
- onetimemanytime 7y agodo not build in the middle of the forest. simple, really. Well, not that simple since people spent their lifetime savings buying the land and building but nothing else works. You probably need 500-1000 yards cleared forest to avoid the fire (embers in the roof and all) and even then all the infrastructure will be melted. PG&E is trying to hold the state hostage. Want us to pay for fires? Fine, we'll cut power to danger zones that weren't economically viable anyway.
- sfblah 7y agoCalifornia has real livability problems even for wealthy tech workers. The traffic has become unbearable thanks to Waze routing everyone all over surface streets, mass transit changes of any kind reliably take 10 years minimum to implement. Heck even closing Market St to cars is going to take more than 5 years for some reason. This is just icing on the cake. It’s really time to think seriously about moving.
- Aloha 7y agoThis is the result of trying to hold the power company in total responsibility for every fire for which it was the proximate cause. While PG&E has been somewhat deficient in maintaining their network they have no control over the weather, winds, firefighting budgets, or forest policy. Yet it alone is now to be held in total responsibility for all fires that originate with its equipment? thats absurd.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> This is the result of trying to hold the power company in total responsibility for every fire for which it was the proximate cause. Yes, otherwise they'd just keep burning down the state because of their preference for extracting profits over safety maintenance like they did the last two years, instead of blackouts to prevent fires. But, bad as the blackouts are, the food are worse, so insofar as the blackouts result from PG&E coming to grips with the liability impacts of causing fires, they are a good thing. A better thing would have been PG&E not underfunding maintenance for several years, but that would have meant less dividends for shareholders.
- Aloha 7y agoThe state PUC is ultimately responsible for regulating PG&E, if the maintenance was negligent why was PG&E not held to account before this happened?
- plorkyeran 7y agoPG&E spent at least 5 years falsifying maintenance records. Verifying that they did all of the maintenance that they claimed to have done would have been a rather substantial task.
- sliken 7y agoWell run power distribution do not start fires. There are standards for how close tree limbs can be to a power line. PG&E asked for money to meet those standards. PG&E accepted that money. Then PG&E didn't meet those standards. Sure acts of god, environmental changes, and other unusual issues start fires. However California has been hot and dry periodically and the existing standards provide good protection... it's just that PG&E is not meeting them.
- neonate 7y agohttp://archive.is/cTjU7 http://archive.is/cTjU7
- simonblack 7y agoWhy does the word "ENRON" keep flashing on and off in my head? Fake energy shortages was why Enron was able to charge exorbitant prices for electricity. You'd think that Americans would have that seared into their brains.
- millstone 7y agoThe Enron rolling blackouts were manufactured arbitrage bookkeeping nonsense, but there was nothing fake about the Camp Fire smoke that covered the Bay Area. It was horrifying.
- JohnClark1337 7y agoI don't understand how California can have so many problems when it's firmly controlled by the Democrats who are clearly superior in every way.