3 ms·

They were supposed to bury them underground but they didn't. This is a well known issue that they ignored because they didn't want to spend the money and instea

by reenorap 11mo ago

They were supposed to bury them underground but they didn't. This is a well known issue that they ignored because they didn't want to spend the money and instead paid dividends and did massive stock buybacks. Now, 20 years later, the costs have skyrocketed because of inflation.

AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
Burying power lines is extremely expensive and does nothing to actually prevent wildfires, which existed in California before the advent of electric utilities. You're complaining about a $50M salary while insisting that they do something ineffective that costs $20B. Then you'd get to pay the cost of burying the power lines and the cost of the fires. Is that actually better than just moving the cost of the fires back to the insurance companies to begin with?
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- reenorap 11mo ago
  You are literally uttering nonsense. No one is blaming PG&E for all wildfires. We are blaming PG&E for the wildfires THAT THEY CAUSED. These fires could have been prevented if THEY BURIED THEIR POWERLINES back in the early 2000s when it was far cheaper and like they promised. They instead decided to ditch that and instead buyback stock and pay lucrative dividends. Burying powerlines would 100% prevent wildfires which were caused by sparking or broken power equipment, which has been the documented reason why several extremely large and fatal wild fires were caused by.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    And what I'm saying is that "caused" is a weasel word when things have more than one cause. To have a fire you need a spark, air and fuel. The air is there all the time. The fuel is there whenever there hasn't been a spark recently. And power lines aren't the only source of sparks. Once the fuel is there and accumulating, you're playing roulette to see if you're going to have a smaller fire now or a bigger fire later. There is no option for "never have a fire again" in those areas, and the second option isn't inherently better than the first one.
  - czl 11mo ago
    If every line were buried, California's huge problem with fires would stop? The real cause is not the lack of prescribed burns and better forest management?
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 11mo ago

Burying power lines is extremely expensive and does nothing to actually prevent wildfires, which existed in California before the advent of electric utilities. You're complaining about a $50M salary while insisting that they do something ineffective that costs $20B. Then you'd get to pay the cost of burying the power lines and the cost of the fires. Is that actually better than just moving the cost of the fires back to the insurance companies to begin with?

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
reenorap 11mo ago
You are literally uttering nonsense. No one is blaming PG&E for all wildfires. We are blaming PG&E for the wildfires THAT THEY CAUSED. These fires could have been prevented if THEY BURIED THEIR POWERLINES back in the early 2000s when it was far cheaper and like they promised. They instead decided to ditch that and instead buyback stock and pay lucrative dividends. Burying powerlines would 100% prevent wildfires which were caused by sparking or broken power equipment, which has been the documented reason why several extremely large and fatal wild fires were caused by.
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  And what I'm saying is that "caused" is a weasel word when things have more than one cause. To have a fire you need a spark, air and fuel. The air is there all the time. The fuel is there whenever there hasn't been a spark recently. And power lines aren't the only source of sparks. Once the fuel is there and accumulating, you're playing roulette to see if you're going to have a smaller fire now or a bigger fire later. There is no option for "never have a fire again" in those areas, and the second option isn't inherently better than the first one.
- czl 11mo ago
  If every line were buried, California's huge problem with fires would stop? The real cause is not the lack of prescribed burns and better forest management?

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]