7 ms·

Take driving as an analogy - there's a non-zero risk of having a crash, but it's significantly higher if you don't follow the rules (drunk, speeding, broken car

by harha 6y ago

Take driving as an analogy - there's a non-zero risk of having a crash, but it's significantly higher if you don't follow the rules (drunk, speeding, broken car). This feels like PG&E was betting it wouldn't happen to them. I think for a utility the risk should be very very close to zero, you can really do a lot of planning around it and make sure that if you're running infrastructure in a dangerous area to take sufficient measures to avoid all likely failures, and if one part breaks it doesn't end in a catastrophe. Maintenance schedules are there for a reason and keeping records helps improve the data for risk models. But there might also be some blame on the general planning of the area, if it's too dangerous to run a power line, there shouldn't be one there. If other causes are likely, it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect this to be one of the government tasks to make sure that they set up some form of protection.

onetimemanytime 6y ago
>>I think for a utility the risk should be very very close to zero They can lower the risk by a lot, but are you ready to pay 65 cents (or whatever) a KW ? PG&E, with all its faults, has been put in an impossible position: one fire (that is bound to happen no matter what because wires fail) can bankrupt them since it can burn hundreds of thousand of acres, thousands of homes, untold deaths and other property destruction. You can't really blame them for everything. Manage forests, stop building a town in the middle of the freaking forest and raise electricity rates for a complete audit of all the lines. Otherwise, nothing can be done, just talk.
- harha 6y ago
  I understand the constraints and I'm not blaming them for everything, creating this dangerous situation is also a great issue, but I think this was handled very badly on their part as well. As a utility they should have a set of rules and guidelines on how to operate safely. If it isn't possible in a situation, they should say no to the other party. With the rules they should be able to point at exactly what is missing and get the other side to fix their part (e.g. the risk or get them to pay extra for maintenance) or stop operating that bit. This looks like they intentionally looked the other way.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I think that's a very poor argument, for a few reasons: 1) We are talking about criminal negligence, saving money is not a good reason of not dealing with crime. 2) we are talking about parts not being replaced in 100 years, the OP is not asking for some crazy level of maintenance thats going to break the bank. 3) once you take into account collateral damage and potential punitive damages, is it actually any cheaper? 4) whats the point of having cheap electricity if ut's inreliable, and ready to fail at any moment?
- syshum 6y ago
  While I am a huge supporter of free market and capitalism, due to the massive regulations on utilities it is no longer a free market, at least for power generation and delivery. Thus the better model for utilities are Coop's, member / consumer owned businesses where the goal is delivering reliable, safe power at a reasonable rate. Utilities by their nature lend themselves to Market Monopoly, regulations added to that almost assures it so for most people having that service provided by a member owner COOP instead of an Investor Owned corporation will result in a better safer, more reliable outcome
- lordnacho 6y ago
  If 65 cents is the actual cost then it should be the price. You can't be charging people 20 cents or whatever, but then they also have to pay to have their homes rebuilt every few decades, pay for insurance, and pay for firefighters.
  - pnutjam 6y ago
    Don't forget, at the current rate we're all subsidizing the rural power users. They should absolutely pay more if it costs more.
    - scottlamb 6y ago
      I think blaming rural power users is a dangerous idea for a couple reasons. > Don't forget, at the current rate we're all subsidizing the rural power users. I'm sure this is true to some extent—just as it is for telecommunications and mail delivery—but this tower wasn't just for rural power users, was it? I think it was some sort of high-voltage long-distance transmission line. There's a region-wide electrical grid, in part because power generation doesn't happen in city centers. Urban and suburban consumers depend on rural transmission lines. > They should absolutely pay more if it costs more. Rural areas produce the food urban areas need. I suppose your goal is to encourage people to move from rural areas to urban areas to lower total societal cost. Presumably you don't also want the food supply to fall and/or food insecurity to increase among the urban poor. So it'd be irresponsible to make this change without careful monitoring and matching policy changes to prevent those effects. You need to keep food affordable, to keep farming affordable, to keep providing services farmers need affordable, etc.
      - pnutjam 6y ago
        Rural people love their subsidies. We should encourage people to live in denser areas, not all cities, but towns. How many rural people do you think are involve in food production? It's only around 10%.
        scottlamb 6y ago
Zanni 6y ago
An even better analogy is Jenga. California's uncontrolled fuel load was going to result in massive fires at some point. Yes, PG&E could have reduced the chance of it being them, which would be great for PG&E, but would make no difference to California.
- harha 6y ago
  Yes this makes sense - back to driving, it's like a road that clearly wasn't safe to operate, but the drunk driving didn't help either.
- Retric 6y ago
  The fuel load decays over time, so a long enough wait period and the next fire is independent of the last fire. Thus, fewer PG&E fires just means less fires rather than there being some independent amount of fire that’s always going to happen. If anything they need to have more responsibility in such areas not less responsibility. If they can’t detect a tree is at risk or not then either cut down more trees or use underground power lines in that area.
  - 10000truths 6y ago
    Well clearly, the fuel load accumulates faster than it decays, or else the fires would not have reached this scale in the first place.
    - Retric 6y ago
      In the short term yes, but like many things it’s an S curve.
  - pixl97 6y ago
    This is mostly incorrect, and a really bad take at understanding fires in semi-arid climates. The fires we are having are a human caused problem, and by human I don't necessarily mean PG&E. Trying to put this blame on one company is going to accomplish pretty much nothing and just lead to more deaths in the future as we piss around looking for the wrong people to blame and avoid solutions. Also, underground cables still cause fires. I know this from experience.
throw0101a 6y ago
> This feels like PG&E was betting it wouldn't happen to them. PG&E is regulated, like most utilities are. Where are/were the regulators?

by harha 6y ago

onetimemanytime 6y ago

>>I think for a utility the risk should be very very close to zero They can lower the risk by a lot, but are you ready to pay 65 cents (or whatever) a KW ? PG&E, with all its faults, has been put in an impossible position: one fire (that is bound to happen no matter what because wires fail) can bankrupt them since it can burn hundreds of thousand of acres, thousands of homes, untold deaths and other property destruction. You can't really blame them for everything. Manage forests, stop building a town in the middle of the freaking forest and raise electricity rates for a complete audit of all the lines. Otherwise, nothing can be done, just talk.

harha 6y ago
I understand the constraints and I'm not blaming them for everything, creating this dangerous situation is also a great issue, but I think this was handled very badly on their part as well. As a utility they should have a set of rules and guidelines on how to operate safely. If it isn't possible in a situation, they should say no to the other party. With the rules they should be able to point at exactly what is missing and get the other side to fix their part (e.g. the risk or get them to pay extra for maintenance) or stop operating that bit. This looks like they intentionally looked the other way.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
I think that's a very poor argument, for a few reasons: 1) We are talking about criminal negligence, saving money is not a good reason of not dealing with crime. 2) we are talking about parts not being replaced in 100 years, the OP is not asking for some crazy level of maintenance thats going to break the bank. 3) once you take into account collateral damage and potential punitive damages, is it actually any cheaper? 4) whats the point of having cheap electricity if ut's inreliable, and ready to fail at any moment?
syshum 6y ago
While I am a huge supporter of free market and capitalism, due to the massive regulations on utilities it is no longer a free market, at least for power generation and delivery. Thus the better model for utilities are Coop's, member / consumer owned businesses where the goal is delivering reliable, safe power at a reasonable rate. Utilities by their nature lend themselves to Market Monopoly, regulations added to that almost assures it so for most people having that service provided by a member owner COOP instead of an Investor Owned corporation will result in a better safer, more reliable outcome
lordnacho 6y ago
If 65 cents is the actual cost then it should be the price. You can't be charging people 20 cents or whatever, but then they also have to pay to have their homes rebuilt every few decades, pay for insurance, and pay for firefighters.
- pnutjam 6y ago
  Don't forget, at the current rate we're all subsidizing the rural power users. They should absolutely pay more if it costs more.
  - scottlamb 6y ago
    I think blaming rural power users is a dangerous idea for a couple reasons. > Don't forget, at the current rate we're all subsidizing the rural power users. I'm sure this is true to some extent—just as it is for telecommunications and mail delivery—but this tower wasn't just for rural power users, was it? I think it was some sort of high-voltage long-distance transmission line. There's a region-wide electrical grid, in part because power generation doesn't happen in city centers. Urban and suburban consumers depend on rural transmission lines. > They should absolutely pay more if it costs more. Rural areas produce the food urban areas need. I suppose your goal is to encourage people to move from rural areas to urban areas to lower total societal cost. Presumably you don't also want the food supply to fall and/or food insecurity to increase among the urban poor. So it'd be irresponsible to make this change without careful monitoring and matching policy changes to prevent those effects. You need to keep food affordable, to keep farming affordable, to keep providing services farmers need affordable, etc.
    - pnutjam 6y ago
      Rural people love their subsidies. We should encourage people to live in denser areas, not all cities, but towns. How many rural people do you think are involve in food production? It's only around 10%.
      - scottlamb 6y ago

Zanni 6y ago

An even better analogy is Jenga. California's uncontrolled fuel load was going to result in massive fires at some point. Yes, PG&E could have reduced the chance of it being them, which would be great for PG&E, but would make no difference to California.

harha 6y ago
Yes this makes sense - back to driving, it's like a road that clearly wasn't safe to operate, but the drunk driving didn't help either.
Retric 6y ago
The fuel load decays over time, so a long enough wait period and the next fire is independent of the last fire. Thus, fewer PG&E fires just means less fires rather than there being some independent amount of fire that’s always going to happen. If anything they need to have more responsibility in such areas not less responsibility. If they can’t detect a tree is at risk or not then either cut down more trees or use underground power lines in that area.
- 10000truths 6y ago
  Well clearly, the fuel load accumulates faster than it decays, or else the fires would not have reached this scale in the first place.
  - Retric 6y ago
    In the short term yes, but like many things it’s an S curve.
- pixl97 6y ago
  This is mostly incorrect, and a really bad take at understanding fires in semi-arid climates. The fires we are having are a human caused problem, and by human I don't necessarily mean PG&E. Trying to put this blame on one company is going to accomplish pretty much nothing and just lead to more deaths in the future as we piss around looking for the wrong people to blame and avoid solutions. Also, underground cables still cause fires. I know this from experience.

throw0101a 6y ago

> This feels like PG&E was betting it wouldn't happen to them. PG&E is regulated, like most utilities are. Where are/were the regulators?