6 ms·

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 profi

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...
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    How about this guy, who was mowing a firebreak? https://www.greenindustrypros.com/lawn-maintenance/mowing/news/12401710/experts-warn-about-wildfire-season-after-lawn-mower-sparks-fire https://www.greenindustrypros.com/lawn-maintenance/mowing/ne... At some point, we have to accept that wildfires are natural and that if we’re going to hold people accountable for the total outcome of their (fairly random) part in the ignition event, we’re going to find people and companies naturally taking a risk-mitigation stance, including stopping maintaining firebreaks and proactively turning off power to large parts of the grid in high-risk areas until some other unlucky sod triggers the fire instead.
- adrianN 7y ago
  But a lot of people want a world where reasonable measures are taken to reduce the risk. Like managing trees for a dozen meters around a power line. It's not rocket science.
  - dgfdsgdsgv 7y ago
    A dozen meters?! HA Typically it's a hundred yards on either side of a high voltage line. And with the liabilities P&G is facing, I'd clear cut a hundred yards on either side of medium voltage lines too. That's a 1km^2 of cleared forrest for every 10 km of line. California has (tens of?) thousands of km of lines.
    - weyland108 7y ago
      Why is that bad? Alternative is burning trees adding to pollution or people living in dark. You could offset the green coverage elsewhere in the state or country.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        No the alternative is extremely reliable electricity that runs year round, and an occasional forest fire. Which of course the fires are going to burn no matter what PG&E does. “But for an electrical spark” is a great way to lay the blame but ignores the hundreds (thousands?) of forest fires each year that start from non-electric sources. In the scale of the maintenance required to have zero risk of fire — hundreds of billions of dollars — the $4 billion in dividends is a rounding error. CA is going to have to do the math and decide it’s not worth $100 billion in guaranteed economic depression due to cutting power to try to save a 5% chance of a $100 billion fire. CA is also going to have to do the math that no one is going to pay to maintain a grid that’s fire proof but charges $3/kWh for power.
Shivetya 7y ago
they only have nearly twenty thousand miles of high tension power lines to look out after, how hard can that be /s? then throw in a hundred thousand miles of everything else. problems look simple until scale is understood. the real truth here is PG&E is effectively a state run corporation, they are so heavily regulated and managed by the state that the only "corporate" part of them is the investors who buy into these state regulated utilities in hopes of safe returns. so in effect, the real guilty party here is the state government but the illusion must be kept in place that they are instead the fixers.
- donkeyd 7y ago
  I feel like this might, in part, also be caused by the hate for taxes in the US. The goal seems to be lowering taxes as much as possible until only the bare minimum is left. Proactively maintaining public land is not something people deem important (until it's too late) so that's an easy thing to skip. 'Adopt a highway' is a perfect example of something that, in my opinion, should be taken care of through taxes, but is now the responsibility of good Samaritans. Now this is what it looks like from far away in Europe and I might be completely wrong.
  - jdhn 7y ago
    Saying that California is a low tax state is completely wrong. The state is known for high taxes even when compared to other liberal states in the US.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      Not generally but they are a low property tax state for those "grandfathered" by Prop 8. Which is another can of worms and not particularly relevant here.
    - donkeyd 7y ago
      That's all relative though. In the US, California has high taxes. Compared to many European countries, taxes in California are still very low.
    - 7y ago
TheHypnotist 7y ago
That's not how they make money.
- Symmetry 7y ago
  The CPUC sets PG&E's profit margins so if they company can't persuade them to let them increase their profit margin then spending more on maintenance would be a good way to make more money. But of course, that would require them persuading the CPUC to let them raise rates to pay for cutting the vegetation.
  - TheHypnotist 7y ago
    When you said make money, do you mean generate revenue? Because turning off the power does not generate revenue (but of course, i understand what you are trying to say). I don't know what PG&E does or their relationship with the CPUC, but typically the best way to get that rate increase is to do actual grid improvements. I would presume that would be getting out in front of their current situation. From what I understand this situation might be a complex mix of mismanagement at every level, state to utility.

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...
- sokoloff 7y ago
  How about this guy, who was mowing a firebreak? https://www.greenindustrypros.com/lawn-maintenance/mowing/news/12401710/experts-warn-about-wildfire-season-after-lawn-mower-sparks-fire https://www.greenindustrypros.com/lawn-maintenance/mowing/ne... At some point, we have to accept that wildfires are natural and that if we’re going to hold people accountable for the total outcome of their (fairly random) part in the ignition event, we’re going to find people and companies naturally taking a risk-mitigation stance, including stopping maintaining firebreaks and proactively turning off power to large parts of the grid in high-risk areas until some other unlucky sod triggers the fire instead.
adrianN 7y ago
But a lot of people want a world where reasonable measures are taken to reduce the risk. Like managing trees for a dozen meters around a power line. It's not rocket science.
- dgfdsgdsgv 7y ago
  A dozen meters?! HA Typically it's a hundred yards on either side of a high voltage line. And with the liabilities P&G is facing, I'd clear cut a hundred yards on either side of medium voltage lines too. That's a 1km^2 of cleared forrest for every 10 km of line. California has (tens of?) thousands of km of lines.
  - weyland108 7y ago
    Why is that bad? Alternative is burning trees adding to pollution or people living in dark. You could offset the green coverage elsewhere in the state or country.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      No the alternative is extremely reliable electricity that runs year round, and an occasional forest fire. Which of course the fires are going to burn no matter what PG&E does. “But for an electrical spark” is a great way to lay the blame but ignores the hundreds (thousands?) of forest fires each year that start from non-electric sources. In the scale of the maintenance required to have zero risk of fire — hundreds of billions of dollars — the $4 billion in dividends is a rounding error. CA is going to have to do the math and decide it’s not worth $100 billion in guaranteed economic depression due to cutting power to try to save a 5% chance of a $100 billion fire. CA is also going to have to do the math that no one is going to pay to maintain a grid that’s fire proof but charges $3/kWh for power.

Shivetya 7y ago

they only have nearly twenty thousand miles of high tension power lines to look out after, how hard can that be /s? then throw in a hundred thousand miles of everything else. problems look simple until scale is understood. the real truth here is PG&E is effectively a state run corporation, they are so heavily regulated and managed by the state that the only "corporate" part of them is the investors who buy into these state regulated utilities in hopes of safe returns. so in effect, the real guilty party here is the state government but the illusion must be kept in place that they are instead the fixers.

donkeyd 7y ago
I feel like this might, in part, also be caused by the hate for taxes in the US. The goal seems to be lowering taxes as much as possible until only the bare minimum is left. Proactively maintaining public land is not something people deem important (until it's too late) so that's an easy thing to skip. 'Adopt a highway' is a perfect example of something that, in my opinion, should be taken care of through taxes, but is now the responsibility of good Samaritans. Now this is what it looks like from far away in Europe and I might be completely wrong.
- jdhn 7y ago
  Saying that California is a low tax state is completely wrong. The state is known for high taxes even when compared to other liberal states in the US.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Not generally but they are a low property tax state for those "grandfathered" by Prop 8. Which is another can of worms and not particularly relevant here.
  - donkeyd 7y ago
    That's all relative though. In the US, California has high taxes. Compared to many European countries, taxes in California are still very low.
  - 7y ago

TheHypnotist 7y ago

That's not how they make money.

Symmetry 7y ago
The CPUC sets PG&E's profit margins so if they company can't persuade them to let them increase their profit margin then spending more on maintenance would be a good way to make more money. But of course, that would require them persuading the CPUC to let them raise rates to pay for cutting the vegetation.
- TheHypnotist 7y ago
  When you said make money, do you mean generate revenue? Because turning off the power does not generate revenue (but of course, i understand what you are trying to say). I don't know what PG&E does or their relationship with the CPUC, but typically the best way to get that rate increase is to do actual grid improvements. I would presume that would be getting out in front of their current situation. From what I understand this situation might be a complex mix of mismanagement at every level, state to utility.