5 ms·

Most reporting about intentional cut-offs makes vague claims about PG&E wanting to avoid future culpability. All the reporting I’ve seen is missing a key, inte

Most reporting about intentional cut-offs makes vague claims about PG&E wanting to avoid future culpability. All the reporting I’ve seen is missing a key, interesting fact. A judge’s court order from January requires them to do these intentional shut offs. Source, w/ link to the court order: https://twitter.com/mikeknoop/status/1189400411175710722 https://twitter.com/mikeknoop/status/1189400411175710722

fzzzy 7y ago
This seems like a huge pr fail on the part of PG&E.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Maybe not. If you read the portion posted by another comment, any shutoff is perhaps a big public sign that they haven't done their maintenance on the network yet.
  - fzzzy 7y ago
    Sure, I'm well aware of their previous lack of maintenance, but if they really wanted to change the discourse about it and deflect the blame, "a judge made us do it" seems like it would be effective at redirecting public anger toward the government. I'm just surprised that PG&E, as a huge bureaucratic company, isn't spinning this story as hard as they can.
    - rubicon33 7y ago
      Do you really think that after the recent fires (camp, santa rosa, etc.) that a PR campaign attacking the government is a good idea? Not sure PG&E is in a place to be throwing stones...
  - drdeadringer 7y ago
    Something a better PR campaign might be able to address. I'm no genius marketer, but perhaps on top of "please don't shoot our line workers" they could hype-train all the work that is actually happening. "See what progress we are making on our mistakes of the past!" type of message. Not sure how to say that without the needless reminder of how they got us all here in the first place, or if that's even possible, but there's got to be some type of spin out there... spin that I sure haven't seen.
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      They can't. They're doing something, but they aren't having a lot of success with it. See: https://www.kqed.org/news/11767619/monitors-spot-check-of-pge-wildfire-safety-effort-finds-missed-trees-recordkeeping-errors https://www.kqed.org/news/11767619/monitors-spot-check-of-pg... > In his report, Filip said that by late July, his team had inspected more than 1,550 PG&E vegetation management projects covering about 71 miles of the utility's power lines. That's a tiny fraction of the utility's more than 100,000 miles of distribution and transmission network. About 25,000 miles of those lines runs through areas the state has identified as high fire-threat districts. > In more than 400 cases, the monitor's team identified what Filip termed "potential exceptions" — nearly 3,300 trees that needed work or should have been considered for removal but were missed by PG&E's enhanced vegetation management program. Report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6272392/Monitor-s-Report-on-PGE-Vegetation-Management.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6272392/Monitor-s...
conistonwater 7y ago
> In light of PG&E’s history of falsification of inspection reports, PG&E shall, between now and the 2019 Wildfire Season, re-inspect all of its electrical grid and remove or trim all trees that could fall onto its power lines, poles or equipment in high-wind conditions, branches that might bend in high wind and hit power lines, poles or equipment, and branches that could break off in high wind and fall onto power lines, poles or equipment; shall identify and fix all conductors that might swing together and arc due to slack and/or other circumstances under high-wind conditions; shall identify and fix damaged or weakened poles, transformers, fuses and other connectors; and shall identify and fix any other condition anywhere in its grid similar to any condition that contributed to any previous wildfires. The trees and branches to be removed are not limited to those within the distances prescribed by the California Public Resources Code but extend farther to any tree or branch posing the dangers described above. As used herein, the 2019 Wildfire Season means June 21, 2019, through the first region-wide rainstorm in November or December. > For each segment of its electrical grid, PG&E shall document the foregoing inspections and the work done and shall rate each segment’s safety under various wind conditions (from little wind to high wind). PG&E must designate one or more qualified engineers to make these safety determinations and the rating must be certified under oath by the engineer in writing. In light of PG&E’s history of false reporting, PG&E may not rely upon its earlier inspection reports as substitutes for the new inspections. PG&E shall follow all requirements of law as well as those in this order, shall follow all guidance provided by the Monitor, and shall be complete and truthful. If a power line happens to comply with all of the requirements of state law but nevertheless poses a safety issue under the circumstances, then the line may not be rated as safe until the safety issue is resolved. > At all times during the 2019 Wildfire Season (and thereafter), PG&E may supply electricity only through those parts of its electrical grid it has determined to be safe under the wind conditions then prevailing. Conversely, PG&E must de-energize any part of its grid not yet rated as safe by PG&E for the wind conditions then prevailing until those conditions have subsided. For example, if Santa Ana winds of up to thirty miles per hour are expected in a given county and if PG&E has not yet rated those power lines as safe for such winds, then PG&E must de-energize those lines during the wind event and beforehand notify affected customers that those lines will be de-energized. In determining safety, PG&E may not take into account the need for reliability of service, the inconvenience to customers resulting from interruption in service, or its impact upon PG&E’s revenues and profits. Reliability is important but safety must come first. Profits are important but safety must come first. Only safe operation will be allowed.
Johnny555 7y ago
"At all times during the 2019 Wildfire Season (and thereafter), PG&E may supply electricity only through those parts of its electrical grid it has determined to be safe under the wind conditions then prevailing. Conversely, PG&E must de-energize any part of its grid not yet rated as safe by PG&E for the wind conditions then prevailing until those conditions have subsided" The court order doesn't prevent them from doing the work to declare more of the system "safe" to reduce or eliminate the scope of the power shutoffs.
- Blackstone4 7y ago
  Yes but they would need to have the capital and time to plan to carry out the work. They are under financial duress and will probably go bankrupt so no one will lend them cash. It may take years to fix everything...imagine if they did not shut down the grid and there was another fire....what would you say to that?
  - zucker42 7y ago
    Electric lines caused fires a few weeks after the first outage. I feel like at this point PG&E is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation (though it might have been brought on by past mismanagement).
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      That is what they would like everyone to think, and indemnify them against their own negligence.
      - zucker42 7y ago
        Well the fire thing actually happened.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    This is a poor time to be a PG&E apologist. While there are several factors that contributed to the ignition, scale, and duration of the fires, PG&E has been found criminally negligible. People are rightly angry. They are still being victimized today for PG&Es long history of behavior. They see no evidence that PG&E is working to correct the situation. They're told, "Hey, but you don't want a fire right" as if that is the only alternative. People want reliable, safely transported power. PG&E is not delivering. And even if PG&E weren't to blame, they've fumbled on every one of these outages from a customer perspective. I was never even notified of the first outage. They communicated through Twitter and some other media. Even the one we had in common I rarely use and when I use I don't see every post. Their website was frequently down. During the second outage their website often had no information, vague information, or inaccurate information. Our neighbors got power back days before we did. We literally had parts of our neighborhood all around us with power, but we went without. And during that time they announced a third outage with the same poor-quality information. We didn't even know if we'd get power back on before the next one hit. Also during that time, they stopped having humans answering their phones. Instead they just had a machine parrot the same (lack of) information that was available on their website. So, I don't know what to tell you. The idea that "a judge made them do it" is absurd. A judge made them do the right thing or to not do the thing at all. It is their history of not doing the right thing, but still doing that thing, that lead us all here.
LorenPechtel 7y ago
Exactly. They were told to shut off the power, they get blamed for shutting off the power.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  It would seem that they were told to shut off the power due to previous criminal negligence. I'm not sure we should let them off the hook; this is their past wild misdeeds, such as falsifying line inspections, catching up with them. There is no need for PG&E apologists, they deserve the scorn they are getting.

fzzzy 7y ago

This seems like a huge pr fail on the part of PG&E.

dv_dt 7y ago
Maybe not. If you read the portion posted by another comment, any shutoff is perhaps a big public sign that they haven't done their maintenance on the network yet.
- fzzzy 7y ago
  Sure, I'm well aware of their previous lack of maintenance, but if they really wanted to change the discourse about it and deflect the blame, "a judge made us do it" seems like it would be effective at redirecting public anger toward the government. I'm just surprised that PG&E, as a huge bureaucratic company, isn't spinning this story as hard as they can.
  - rubicon33 7y ago
    Do you really think that after the recent fires (camp, santa rosa, etc.) that a PR campaign attacking the government is a good idea? Not sure PG&E is in a place to be throwing stones...
- drdeadringer 7y ago
  Something a better PR campaign might be able to address. I'm no genius marketer, but perhaps on top of "please don't shoot our line workers" they could hype-train all the work that is actually happening. "See what progress we are making on our mistakes of the past!" type of message. Not sure how to say that without the needless reminder of how they got us all here in the first place, or if that's even possible, but there's got to be some type of spin out there... spin that I sure haven't seen.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    They can't. They're doing something, but they aren't having a lot of success with it. See: https://www.kqed.org/news/11767619/monitors-spot-check-of-pge-wildfire-safety-effort-finds-missed-trees-recordkeeping-errors https://www.kqed.org/news/11767619/monitors-spot-check-of-pg... > In his report, Filip said that by late July, his team had inspected more than 1,550 PG&E vegetation management projects covering about 71 miles of the utility's power lines. That's a tiny fraction of the utility's more than 100,000 miles of distribution and transmission network. About 25,000 miles of those lines runs through areas the state has identified as high fire-threat districts. > In more than 400 cases, the monitor's team identified what Filip termed "potential exceptions" — nearly 3,300 trees that needed work or should have been considered for removal but were missed by PG&E's enhanced vegetation management program. Report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6272392/Monitor-s-Report-on-PGE-Vegetation-Management.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6272392/Monitor-s...

conistonwater 7y ago

> In light of PG&E’s history of falsification of inspection reports, PG&E shall, between now and the 2019 Wildfire Season, re-inspect all of its electrical grid and remove or trim all trees that could fall onto its power lines, poles or equipment in high-wind conditions, branches that might bend in high wind and hit power lines, poles or equipment, and branches that could break off in high wind and fall onto power lines, poles or equipment; shall identify and fix all conductors that might swing together and arc due to slack and/or other circumstances under high-wind conditions; shall identify and fix damaged or weakened poles, transformers, fuses and other connectors; and shall identify and fix any other condition anywhere in its grid similar to any condition that contributed to any previous wildfires. The trees and branches to be removed are not limited to those within the distances prescribed by the California Public Resources Code but extend farther to any tree or branch posing the dangers described above. As used herein, the 2019 Wildfire Season means June 21, 2019, through the first region-wide rainstorm in November or December. > For each segment of its electrical grid, PG&E shall document the foregoing inspections and the work done and shall rate each segment’s safety under various wind conditions (from little wind to high wind). PG&E must designate one or more qualified engineers to make these safety determinations and the rating must be certified under oath by the engineer in writing. In light of PG&E’s history of false reporting, PG&E may not rely upon its earlier inspection reports as substitutes for the new inspections. PG&E shall follow all requirements of law as well as those in this order, shall follow all guidance provided by the Monitor, and shall be complete and truthful. If a power line happens to comply with all of the requirements of state law but nevertheless poses a safety issue under the circumstances, then the line may not be rated as safe until the safety issue is resolved. > At all times during the 2019 Wildfire Season (and thereafter), PG&E may supply electricity only through those parts of its electrical grid it has determined to be safe under the wind conditions then prevailing. Conversely, PG&E must de-energize any part of its grid not yet rated as safe by PG&E for the wind conditions then prevailing until those conditions have subsided. For example, if Santa Ana winds of up to thirty miles per hour are expected in a given county and if PG&E has not yet rated those power lines as safe for such winds, then PG&E must de-energize those lines during the wind event and beforehand notify affected customers that those lines will be de-energized. In determining safety, PG&E may not take into account the need for reliability of service, the inconvenience to customers resulting from interruption in service, or its impact upon PG&E’s revenues and profits. Reliability is important but safety must come first. Profits are important but safety must come first. Only safe operation will be allowed.

Johnny555 7y ago

"At all times during the 2019 Wildfire Season (and thereafter), PG&E may supply electricity only through those parts of its electrical grid it has determined to be safe under the wind conditions then prevailing. Conversely, PG&E must de-energize any part of its grid not yet rated as safe by PG&E for the wind conditions then prevailing until those conditions have subsided" The court order doesn't prevent them from doing the work to declare more of the system "safe" to reduce or eliminate the scope of the power shutoffs.

Blackstone4 7y ago
Yes but they would need to have the capital and time to plan to carry out the work. They are under financial duress and will probably go bankrupt so no one will lend them cash. It may take years to fix everything...imagine if they did not shut down the grid and there was another fire....what would you say to that?
- zucker42 7y ago
  Electric lines caused fires a few weeks after the first outage. I feel like at this point PG&E is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation (though it might have been brought on by past mismanagement).
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    That is what they would like everyone to think, and indemnify them against their own negligence.
    - zucker42 7y ago
      Well the fire thing actually happened.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  This is a poor time to be a PG&E apologist. While there are several factors that contributed to the ignition, scale, and duration of the fires, PG&E has been found criminally negligible. People are rightly angry. They are still being victimized today for PG&Es long history of behavior. They see no evidence that PG&E is working to correct the situation. They're told, "Hey, but you don't want a fire right" as if that is the only alternative. People want reliable, safely transported power. PG&E is not delivering. And even if PG&E weren't to blame, they've fumbled on every one of these outages from a customer perspective. I was never even notified of the first outage. They communicated through Twitter and some other media. Even the one we had in common I rarely use and when I use I don't see every post. Their website was frequently down. During the second outage their website often had no information, vague information, or inaccurate information. Our neighbors got power back days before we did. We literally had parts of our neighborhood all around us with power, but we went without. And during that time they announced a third outage with the same poor-quality information. We didn't even know if we'd get power back on before the next one hit. Also during that time, they stopped having humans answering their phones. Instead they just had a machine parrot the same (lack of) information that was available on their website. So, I don't know what to tell you. The idea that "a judge made them do it" is absurd. A judge made them do the right thing or to not do the thing at all. It is their history of not doing the right thing, but still doing that thing, that lead us all here.

LorenPechtel 7y ago

Exactly. They were told to shut off the power, they get blamed for shutting off the power.

wbronitsky 7y ago
It would seem that they were told to shut off the power due to previous criminal negligence. I'm not sure we should let them off the hook; this is their past wild misdeeds, such as falsifying line inspections, catching up with them. There is no need for PG&E apologists, they deserve the scorn they are getting.