3 ms·

Utilities cost excesses in California are largely PG&E paying for its liability for causing wildfires in places where people probably shouldn’t live anyway. Fo

Utilities cost excesses in California are largely PG&E paying for its liability for causing wildfires in places where people probably shouldn’t live anyway. For example Silicon Valley Power which serves Santa Clara (or something like that) has rates that are literally half as much as PG&E. In Minnesota I’m paying for Xcel Energy’s mistakes in Texas.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
People should be able to live wherever they want. That doesn't imply others should have to subsidize them doing so. It is really quite simple. If someone remote wants power, they should secure power and pay for it at a market clearing rate, given the cost and risk to deliver it.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  This is something else. California has wildfires, and climate change has made them worse. Then the people who built their houses in a silly place prone to wildfires watch them burn down. This is becoming a problem as the frequency which with it happens increases, because it can bankrupt fire insurance companies (who then can't pay claims), or make fire insurance there unaffordable and then people don't buy it, their house burns down, and you have angry constituents. The political solution to this is to put the liability on the power company whenever possible, even though it isn't really their fault. The fire is caused by dry conditions and that wood is going up the first time there is any kind of flame anywhere near it. If it wasn't PG&E it would have been a lightning strike or something else. Having the fires less often can actually make them worse. But the power company is a deep pocket, so if there is any way to pin the fire on them, that's what everybody wants to do, so that the uninsured people in the fire zone can collect from someone and the currently insured people who are still there don't become unable to afford fire insurance. Then the power company raises rates on everybody in their service area, including people who don't live in high fire risk areas, because the government has them acting as the fire insurance company, but now you can't cancel your "fire insurance" without turning off your electricity and it also has to be paid by people who didn't build their house in a silly place.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I pretty strongly disagree. There is some liability on the state and voters for anti burn policy. However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment. If homes are uninsurable, then they shouldn't be. That should only be an issue for an insurer and home owner to work out. If people want to live somewhere uninsurable, or with more expensive power, I have no issue whatsoever, and won't call them silly. That is their perogitive and values. I view it the same way as if someone wants to base jump, or eat a $500 steak. I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment. Mitigating the risk is pointless. Wildfires are a natural occurrence in California. The ignition source is irrelevant. The fire is happening, you can't stop it. > I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn. And then they're going to want to play the sympathetic victim who has just lost everything in a fire and go to the government and try to get someone else (i.e. you, via PG&E) to pay for the consequences of their choices. The traditional way of doing this is to make the insurance pay, but they didn't have insurance because the high risk was known in advance which made the insurance unaffordable. When that's not available, the lawyers have to find someone else to sue, and in this case it's the power company.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Ignition source matters, because frequency happens. Take the camp fire. If not for PG&E, 85 people would be alive, and 16 billion in damages would be averted. >But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn. I dont know what you think is "high probability", but it doesnt really matter. The point is that it should be between them and the power company. I think you have a pretty distorted view of reality. PGE didnt and doesn't get sued for natural wildfires, only what they cause.
kccqzy 3y ago
It's not just about causing wildfires in places where people shouldn't live, but causing wildfires in places that no people actually live, but these places happen to be between other places where people live.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

People should be able to live wherever they want. That doesn't imply others should have to subsidize them doing so. It is really quite simple. If someone remote wants power, they should secure power and pay for it at a market clearing rate, given the cost and risk to deliver it.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
This is something else. California has wildfires, and climate change has made them worse. Then the people who built their houses in a silly place prone to wildfires watch them burn down. This is becoming a problem as the frequency which with it happens increases, because it can bankrupt fire insurance companies (who then can't pay claims), or make fire insurance there unaffordable and then people don't buy it, their house burns down, and you have angry constituents. The political solution to this is to put the liability on the power company whenever possible, even though it isn't really their fault. The fire is caused by dry conditions and that wood is going up the first time there is any kind of flame anywhere near it. If it wasn't PG&E it would have been a lightning strike or something else. Having the fires less often can actually make them worse. But the power company is a deep pocket, so if there is any way to pin the fire on them, that's what everybody wants to do, so that the uninsured people in the fire zone can collect from someone and the currently insured people who are still there don't become unable to afford fire insurance. Then the power company raises rates on everybody in their service area, including people who don't live in high fire risk areas, because the government has them acting as the fire insurance company, but now you can't cancel your "fire insurance" without turning off your electricity and it also has to be paid by people who didn't build their house in a silly place.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I pretty strongly disagree. There is some liability on the state and voters for anti burn policy. However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment. If homes are uninsurable, then they shouldn't be. That should only be an issue for an insurer and home owner to work out. If people want to live somewhere uninsurable, or with more expensive power, I have no issue whatsoever, and won't call them silly. That is their perogitive and values. I view it the same way as if someone wants to base jump, or eat a $500 steak. I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment. Mitigating the risk is pointless. Wildfires are a natural occurrence in California. The ignition source is irrelevant. The fire is happening, you can't stop it. > I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn. And then they're going to want to play the sympathetic victim who has just lost everything in a fire and go to the government and try to get someone else (i.e. you, via PG&E) to pay for the consequences of their choices. The traditional way of doing this is to make the insurance pay, but they didn't have insurance because the high risk was known in advance which made the insurance unaffordable. When that's not available, the lawyers have to find someone else to sue, and in this case it's the power company.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Ignition source matters, because frequency happens. Take the camp fire. If not for PG&E, 85 people would be alive, and 16 billion in damages would be averted. >But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn. I dont know what you think is "high probability", but it doesnt really matter. The point is that it should be between them and the power company. I think you have a pretty distorted view of reality. PGE didnt and doesn't get sued for natural wildfires, only what they cause.

kccqzy 3y ago

It's not just about causing wildfires in places where people shouldn't live, but causing wildfires in places that no people actually live, but these places happen to be between other places where people live.