5 ms·

As someone who lives 15 miles from Paradise, CA - A “very expensive solution” makes it sound like there are inexpensive solutions that would be just as effectiv

As someone who lives 15 miles from Paradise, CA - A “very expensive solution” makes it sound like there are inexpensive solutions that would be just as effective. If there were, wouldn’t PGE have implemented them? Maybe its just “the solution”.

habibur 5y ago
PGE is more concerned about the billion dollar law suites. This solution makes economic sense to them. But doesn't help the fire. As long the dry woods are piling up, which it eventually will, something else will trigger the fire. And amount of fire won't be even reduce by 25%. But the court won't be able to blame PGE then, that's the whole point.
- brazzy 5y ago
  This, exactly. A PGE power line probably sparked the deadly Paradise fire, and I've repeadly see people blaming them for the deaths with metaphorical pitch forks in hand, completely ignoring the far more complex reasons for people being unable to get away from that fire safely.
bbarnett 5y ago
In Quebec, Hydro Quebec trims trees and shrubbery from wires every summer. This is much, much cheaper than burying them, and they hire students going into forest, and related fields to assist with the work (heavily supervised). It is not even remotely hard to believe that Quebec has far, far more rural power lines than California. What's the difference? State run organizations like Hydro Quebec, are IMO not apt to create short term profits, by sacrificing long term cost saving measures. There is no CEO of Hydro Quebec getting a massive boost to income via stock profits, or awards due to profit targets met. The goal is instead, make delivery the safest and most cost effective over the long term. By burying wires, I suspect it achieves two things. Ensuring a CEO, or department head won't cost save for a bonus, and not trim wires, and to maybe do a one time write down. To highlight this? I accidentally had a tree fall the wrong way (I has ropes too, one slipped) during a cut. Hydro Quebec came and cut the tree from the wires, restored power, for free. In Ontario, where power is private now? I would have paid thousands. Why the difference? The loss of life, because someone tries to save money and deal with it themselves, isn't worth it. Especially when state paid health care, and disability exists. I'm 100% a capitalist. Yet some things make sense, run as a non profit, where costs are counter to societal safety and goals.
- refurb 5y ago
  PG&E might have private investors but it doesn’t do anything with the Public Utility Commissions oversight. And they trim trees in CA too, but unlike QC which is typically green in the summer, CA is typically full of dry vegetation and a spark in the grass is still going to start a massive fire.
- gruez 5y ago
  >What's the difference? State run organizations like Hydro Quebec, are IMO not apt to create short term profits, by sacrificing long term cost saving measures. There is no CEO of Hydro Quebec getting a massive boost to income via stock profits, or awards due to profit targets met. Not really. While it's true that a state run organizations might not cut costs to meet profits, that's just replaced with cutting to meet budget requirements. eg. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
  - theluketaylor 5y ago
    This is where Canada's concept of a crown corporation works quite well. It is established with a specific mandate by a province or the federal government, but run at a pretty long arm's length while still being accountable to the legislature. Some crown corps, like Hydro Quebec, produce their own revenue, so they have some market incentives to perform and are not subject to the whims of the annual government budget.
    - jlmorton 5y ago
      It's worth pointing out the US already does this. For instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority is a Federally-owned utility, and the sixth largest in the country. There are lots of other examples like this outside of utilities. The US Postal Service, Amtrak, the Export-Import Bank, and many others.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >It is established with a specific mandate by a province or the federal government, but run at a pretty long arm's length while still being accountable to the legislature. Doesn't that describe PG&E? It's run at "long arm's length" from the government because it's a private company, but it's also accountable to the CPUC. > Some crown corps, like Hydro Quebec, produce their own revenue, so they have some market incentives to perform What are these "market incentives to perform", and how does it not lead us back to square one with "these companies will cut costs to boost profits"?

habibur 5y ago

PGE is more concerned about the billion dollar law suites. This solution makes economic sense to them. But doesn't help the fire. As long the dry woods are piling up, which it eventually will, something else will trigger the fire. And amount of fire won't be even reduce by 25%. But the court won't be able to blame PGE then, that's the whole point.

brazzy 5y ago
This, exactly. A PGE power line probably sparked the deadly Paradise fire, and I've repeadly see people blaming them for the deaths with metaphorical pitch forks in hand, completely ignoring the far more complex reasons for people being unable to get away from that fire safely.

bbarnett 5y ago

In Quebec, Hydro Quebec trims trees and shrubbery from wires every summer. This is much, much cheaper than burying them, and they hire students going into forest, and related fields to assist with the work (heavily supervised). It is not even remotely hard to believe that Quebec has far, far more rural power lines than California. What's the difference? State run organizations like Hydro Quebec, are IMO not apt to create short term profits, by sacrificing long term cost saving measures. There is no CEO of Hydro Quebec getting a massive boost to income via stock profits, or awards due to profit targets met. The goal is instead, make delivery the safest and most cost effective over the long term. By burying wires, I suspect it achieves two things. Ensuring a CEO, or department head won't cost save for a bonus, and not trim wires, and to maybe do a one time write down. To highlight this? I accidentally had a tree fall the wrong way (I has ropes too, one slipped) during a cut. Hydro Quebec came and cut the tree from the wires, restored power, for free. In Ontario, where power is private now? I would have paid thousands. Why the difference? The loss of life, because someone tries to save money and deal with it themselves, isn't worth it. Especially when state paid health care, and disability exists. I'm 100% a capitalist. Yet some things make sense, run as a non profit, where costs are counter to societal safety and goals.

refurb 5y ago
PG&E might have private investors but it doesn’t do anything with the Public Utility Commissions oversight. And they trim trees in CA too, but unlike QC which is typically green in the summer, CA is typically full of dry vegetation and a spark in the grass is still going to start a massive fire.
gruez 5y ago
>What's the difference? State run organizations like Hydro Quebec, are IMO not apt to create short term profits, by sacrificing long term cost saving measures. There is no CEO of Hydro Quebec getting a massive boost to income via stock profits, or awards due to profit targets met. Not really. While it's true that a state run organizations might not cut costs to meet profits, that's just replaced with cutting to meet budget requirements. eg. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
- theluketaylor 5y ago
  This is where Canada's concept of a crown corporation works quite well. It is established with a specific mandate by a province or the federal government, but run at a pretty long arm's length while still being accountable to the legislature. Some crown corps, like Hydro Quebec, produce their own revenue, so they have some market incentives to perform and are not subject to the whims of the annual government budget.
  - jlmorton 5y ago
    It's worth pointing out the US already does this. For instance, the Tennessee Valley Authority is a Federally-owned utility, and the sixth largest in the country. There are lots of other examples like this outside of utilities. The US Postal Service, Amtrak, the Export-Import Bank, and many others.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >It is established with a specific mandate by a province or the federal government, but run at a pretty long arm's length while still being accountable to the legislature. Doesn't that describe PG&E? It's run at "long arm's length" from the government because it's a private company, but it's also accountable to the CPUC. > Some crown corps, like Hydro Quebec, produce their own revenue, so they have some market incentives to perform What are these "market incentives to perform", and how does it not lead us back to square one with "these companies will cut costs to boost profits"?