6 ms·

I'm not from the USA, is my understanding of this correct? The power utility is liable for fires caused if a branch blows into its power lines during high wind

I'm not from the USA, is my understanding of this correct? The power utility is liable for fires caused if a branch blows into its power lines during high winds. So the power utility has chosen to turn off the power in high winds?

rootsudo 7y ago
The other thing is not maintaining the lines or area surrounding them because of the NIMBY idealism of most Californians and/or graft.
- thrower123 7y ago
  Right. This is hugely a result of mismanagement and failure to invest properly, combined with disastrous forestry policy.
nefitty 7y ago
That is a cynical conclusion, but the incentives are aligned for that it to be logical. The article framed the motive as to try "avoiding disaster". It seems like the most rational decision for PG&E to take considering the circumstances.
newguy1234 7y ago
Correct. If a fire is started and the ignition of that fire is shown to be linked to a utility's assets (power lines, gas line etc.) then all the damage caused by the fire could become a lawsuit liability for the fire.
- Symmetry 7y ago
  And, importantly, in California utilities culpable for fires whether they acted negligently or not. https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/inverse_condemnation_fact_sheet_league__csac.pdf https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/i...
kuschku 7y ago
The intended consequence would have been for the company to cut vegetation around its lines so this can't happen, but apparently turning off power is more profitable.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  It's also possible that is not feasible to do all that maintenance work and still keep the rates at what they are now. Until now, PG&E made believe like they were maintaining and state officials made believe that Californians were paying a market rate for power. Apparently they have to maintain an area roughly twice the size of Portugal https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/prof... in all kinds of terrain. So now CA state will probably take over and do something with liabilities.
  - kuschku 7y ago
    It's a similar issue with DB Netz rails and tracks in Germany — the amount of maintenance is too much, and too expensive, so they stopped cutting the vegetation about 20 years ago. And now, with every little storm, trees end up on the rails.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  No one (or extremely few) wants a world where no trees could ever fall on a power line. If a car crashes into a power pole and sparks an inevitable fire, is the driver liable? If the normal operation of a mower triggers an inevitable fire, is the operator liable?
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    Yes, yes. I was discussing this incident last night: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/02/us/az-off-duty-border-patrol-agent-wildfire/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/02/us/az-off-duty-border-patro...
    - 7y ago
colechristensen 7y ago
There's a missing piece where the utility has been pretty negligent about doing things to prevent fires and that at least some previous fires started by the utility could have been prevented. So they're turning off power in high winds.

rootsudo 7y ago

The other thing is not maintaining the lines or area surrounding them because of the NIMBY idealism of most Californians and/or graft.

thrower123 7y ago
Right. This is hugely a result of mismanagement and failure to invest properly, combined with disastrous forestry policy.

nefitty 7y ago

That is a cynical conclusion, but the incentives are aligned for that it to be logical. The article framed the motive as to try "avoiding disaster". It seems like the most rational decision for PG&E to take considering the circumstances.

newguy1234 7y ago

Correct. If a fire is started and the ignition of that fire is shown to be linked to a utility's assets (power lines, gas line etc.) then all the damage caused by the fire could become a lawsuit liability for the fire.

Symmetry 7y ago
And, importantly, in California utilities culpable for fires whether they acted negligently or not. https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/inverse_condemnation_fact_sheet_league__csac.pdf https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/i...

kuschku 7y ago

The intended consequence would have been for the company to cut vegetation around its lines so this can't happen, but apparently turning off power is more profitable.

onetimemanytime 7y ago
It's also possible that is not feasible to do all that maintenance work and still keep the rates at what they are now. Until now, PG&E made believe like they were maintaining and state officials made believe that Californians were paying a market rate for power. Apparently they have to maintain an area roughly twice the size of Portugal https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/prof... in all kinds of terrain. So now CA state will probably take over and do something with liabilities.
- kuschku 7y ago
  It's a similar issue with DB Netz rails and tracks in Germany — the amount of maintenance is too much, and too expensive, so they stopped cutting the vegetation about 20 years ago. And now, with every little storm, trees end up on the rails.
sokoloff 7y ago
No one (or extremely few) wants a world where no trees could ever fall on a power line. If a car crashes into a power pole and sparks an inevitable fire, is the driver liable? If the normal operation of a mower triggers an inevitable fire, is the operator liable?
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  Yes, yes. I was discussing this incident last night: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/02/us/az-off-duty-border-patrol-agent-wildfire/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/02/us/az-off-duty-border-patro...
  - 7y ago

colechristensen 7y ago

There's a missing piece where the utility has been pretty negligent about doing things to prevent fires and that at least some previous fires started by the utility could have been prevented. So they're turning off power in high winds.