3 ms·
I agree PGE was negligent, but it also doesn't make sense to assign the entire cost of the resulting fire to PGE. The scale of the fire damage was a result of m
by creato 2y ago
I agree PGE was negligent, but it also doesn't make sense to assign the entire cost of the resulting fire to PGE. The scale of the fire damage was a result of many factors, only some of which are due to PGE. A huge destructive fire was a matter of time. Whether it was caused by PGE, lightning, or an RV tire blowout was a matter of chance.
Or another way to put it, how much liability would you give the RV drivers in these two scenarios?
https://www.kktv.com/2024/07/23/rv-with-blown-tire-sparks-several-fires-along-i-70-western-colorado/ https://www.kktv.com/2024/07/23/rv-with-blown-tire-sparks-se...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carr_Fire
- doctorpangloss 2y agoThe cost wasn’t assigned to PG&E. Brother, the CPUC is approving the rate increases to pay back the settlement. You are getting the same electricity today as you did in 2019. The entire cost was assigned to YOU. There are so many smart people on this forum. How hard is it to understand the spelled-out-in-the-law relationship between your compulsory payment for electricity rising and the cost of the settlements?
- richwater 2y ago> . A huge destructive fire was a matter of time. You can't avoid legal ramifications by saying _something_ was bound to happen
- creato 2y agoSo then, $1.6B of liability to the driver of the RV at the Carr fire, and a few thousand to the Colorado RV driver? For the exact same error in both cases? Legally, maybe you are right. I honestly don't know. It doesn't seem right to me though.