3 ms·

I don’t see how they (or anyone else that may operate PG&E) has any option here... PG&E operated under a risk model that allowed them to defer maintenance for y

I don’t see how they (or anyone else that may operate PG&E) has any option here... PG&E operated under a risk model that allowed them to defer maintenance for years with no consequences for the fires they caused. When that turned out to be wrong, they need to 1) stop causing fires and 2) complete the maintenance they should have been doing. The problem is that #2 may take years to get caught up before they can begin operating normally again. So where they are now: they operate a high risk service during certain whether conditions, and they’re responsible if anything goes wrong. So what should they do given their current position? (As in right now.. no “should have”s that they can’t change.) shutting down occasionally seems pretty reasonable from their point of view.

YawningAngel 7y ago
How is a utility even allowed to "shut down" outside of some Act of God? If they can't run the utility to an acceptable SLA, it should be nationalised.
OnlineGladiator 7y ago
This does nothing to address the issue of how poor management is to blame for this situation in the first place. Yes, the blackouts are probably a reasonable response to the current situation, but what are they doing to make sure this never happens again? Basically where is the accountability? If they need to do rolling blackouts to prevent fires that's fine. Are the people that designed the system so poorly being blamed for leading us to this situation or are they being handsomely rewarded?
- cgriswald 7y ago
  Given that we regularly have moderately strong winds here and that during the last blackout the winds were very calm, I’m quite skeptical of claims of this being a “reasonable” behavior. As far as I can tell this is a game of chicken and they’re betting the state will flinch first.
csense 7y ago
From PG&E's standpoint, what they should do is use the blackouts to extort as many concessions as possible from the state in terms of having the taxpayers pay for maintenance, and passing some kind of liability protection legislation so they're off the hook. What the state should do is seek some kind of emergency court judgment that electric power is an essential service that PG&E is not allowed to cut off for mere financial liability reasons. Then get a court order that says PG&E has to turn it on, if they refuse, jail people until they find somebody willing to follow the court order. Basically, if the state's doing their job, they'll tell PG&E they made their bed and now have to lie in it. Meaning they're forced to run, and if more disasters happen due to their reduced maintenance, they go bankrupt. The shareholders and bondholders are wiped out, and since it's an essential service, the state runs it using tax dollars until they can find new investors willing to take it on. In practice, this probably wouldn't happen until the state was done fixing the maintenance backlog on the taxpayers' dime. Since homes were destroyed and lives lost as a result of their actions, the people who originally decided to skimp on maintenance might be criminally liable and end up in jail, IANAL though.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  Except the fires are happening now. Telling PG&E now to keep power turned on in windy areas is increasing the risk. The state would have a hard time being absolved of the _increased_ liability for such a thing. In this case, while I completely understand the bigger picture, that would be the state telling them to make unsafe decisions.

YawningAngel 7y ago

How is a utility even allowed to "shut down" outside of some Act of God? If they can't run the utility to an acceptable SLA, it should be nationalised.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

This does nothing to address the issue of how poor management is to blame for this situation in the first place. Yes, the blackouts are probably a reasonable response to the current situation, but what are they doing to make sure this never happens again? Basically where is the accountability? If they need to do rolling blackouts to prevent fires that's fine. Are the people that designed the system so poorly being blamed for leading us to this situation or are they being handsomely rewarded?

cgriswald 7y ago
Given that we regularly have moderately strong winds here and that during the last blackout the winds were very calm, I’m quite skeptical of claims of this being a “reasonable” behavior. As far as I can tell this is a game of chicken and they’re betting the state will flinch first.

csense 7y ago

From PG&E's standpoint, what they should do is use the blackouts to extort as many concessions as possible from the state in terms of having the taxpayers pay for maintenance, and passing some kind of liability protection legislation so they're off the hook. What the state should do is seek some kind of emergency court judgment that electric power is an essential service that PG&E is not allowed to cut off for mere financial liability reasons. Then get a court order that says PG&E has to turn it on, if they refuse, jail people until they find somebody willing to follow the court order. Basically, if the state's doing their job, they'll tell PG&E they made their bed and now have to lie in it. Meaning they're forced to run, and if more disasters happen due to their reduced maintenance, they go bankrupt. The shareholders and bondholders are wiped out, and since it's an essential service, the state runs it using tax dollars until they can find new investors willing to take it on. In practice, this probably wouldn't happen until the state was done fixing the maintenance backlog on the taxpayers' dime. Since homes were destroyed and lives lost as a result of their actions, the people who originally decided to skimp on maintenance might be criminally liable and end up in jail, IANAL though.

FireBeyond 7y ago
Except the fires are happening now. Telling PG&E now to keep power turned on in windy areas is increasing the risk. The state would have a hard time being absolved of the _increased_ liability for such a thing. In this case, while I completely understand the bigger picture, that would be the state telling them to make unsafe decisions.