2 ms·

I feel like you are confusing the issue here. The law states that they are legally to blame no matter what condition their equipment is in. Therefore it would m

I feel like you are confusing the issue here. The law states that they are legally to blame no matter what condition their equipment is in. Therefore it would make sense to temporarily shut down the system. As to whether or not their equipment caused the large fires is another issue and another discussion altogether.

fzeroracer 7y ago
No, the law has been (and the court case has been linked here before) is that falsifying inspection reports and not actually performing your due diligence in maintaining your power lines and what not opens you up to liability. The entire reason why they have to shut down their systems is because for years they've been making shit up in order to avoid having to do actual maintenance. And now rather than performing the proper safety inspections and maintenance, they're shutting down the systems due to their prior screwups.
- Blackstone4 7y ago
  Again I feel like you mis-read my statement. I agree that falsifying inspection reports and not performing maintenance is wrong. I agree that not doing this places PG&E at fault. If you read my comments, I was not arguing against this.
- makomk 7y ago
  This isn't true. Under California law, PG&E are fully legally liable for any fires caused by their equipment even if they have fully and properly maintained it. This is called "inverse condemnation" and absolutely no negligence is required. (As it happens their maintenance has been rather dubious, but that doesn't affect their legal liability in any way.) If I remember rightly, the case which set this precedent involved a fuse correctly failing open and managing to set fire to some brush beneath the pole which had grown up in a few months since they'd cleared the entire area around it. There is no maintenance standard they could follow that would protect them from liability; all they can maybe hope to do is decrease the number of fires and the consequent costs somewhat.

fzeroracer 7y ago

No, the law has been (and the court case has been linked here before) is that falsifying inspection reports and not actually performing your due diligence in maintaining your power lines and what not opens you up to liability. The entire reason why they have to shut down their systems is because for years they've been making shit up in order to avoid having to do actual maintenance. And now rather than performing the proper safety inspections and maintenance, they're shutting down the systems due to their prior screwups.

Blackstone4 7y ago
Again I feel like you mis-read my statement. I agree that falsifying inspection reports and not performing maintenance is wrong. I agree that not doing this places PG&E at fault. If you read my comments, I was not arguing against this.
makomk 7y ago
This isn't true. Under California law, PG&E are fully legally liable for any fires caused by their equipment even if they have fully and properly maintained it. This is called "inverse condemnation" and absolutely no negligence is required. (As it happens their maintenance has been rather dubious, but that doesn't affect their legal liability in any way.) If I remember rightly, the case which set this precedent involved a fuse correctly failing open and managing to set fire to some brush beneath the pole which had grown up in a few months since they'd cleared the entire area around it. There is no maintenance standard they could follow that would protect them from liability; all they can maybe hope to do is decrease the number of fires and the consequent costs somewhat.