5 ms·

>>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&

>>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

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