California Can Expect Blackouts for a Decade, Says PG&E CEO(npr.org)
npr.org
California Can Expect Blackouts for a Decade, Says PG&E CEO
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/18/771486828/california-can-expect-blackouts-for-a-decade-says-pg-e-ceo
171 comments
PG&E has been paying out dividends and executive bonuses instead of reinvesting in their infrastructure for years. And bought off a number of state politicians.
Now that climate change is creating conditions for the already wildfire-prone landscape of California to suffer more frequent and severe events, the power companies are washing their hands of it. Short of some major state or federal investment in upgrading energy infrastructure (like the green new deal), I wouldn’t expect that to change.
Now that climate change is creating conditions for the already wildfire-prone landscape of California to suffer more frequent and severe events, the power companies are washing their hands of it. Short of some major state or federal investment in upgrading energy infrastructure (like the green new deal), I wouldn’t expect that to change.
> PG&E has been paying out dividends and executive bonuses instead of reinvesting in their infrastructure for years. And bought off a number of state politicians.
Re the dividends part, that's an issue on which our present society will have to work more and more, because afaik most of those dividends go into the coffers of pension funds/insurance companies/big institutional investors which by their very nature "trickle down" that money mostly to people aged over 45 or 50. Most of those reinvestments you mention will get their financial return in 20-30 years' time, by which point the age-group I mentioned earlier (the over 45-50) will either be dead or to old too care that much about it.
Re the dividends part, that's an issue on which our present society will have to work more and more, because afaik most of those dividends go into the coffers of pension funds/insurance companies/big institutional investors which by their very nature "trickle down" that money mostly to people aged over 45 or 50. Most of those reinvestments you mention will get their financial return in 20-30 years' time, by which point the age-group I mentioned earlier (the over 45-50) will either be dead or to old too care that much about it.
RE: pension funds; that is something that bothers me eternally. How do you find a store of wealth for normal people? Financial managers have opted for shares and bonds and in the process risk economic instability through overvaluation. The French, being the French, instead makes you pay the current people's pension in taxes and in turn promise to do the same when you are a pensioner.
Let's hope they don't do it "the South African way".
Let's hope they don't do it "the South African way".
Shouldn’t PGE forgo payouts to shareholders in order to keep infrastructure to a better standard? Surely the long term value of PGE is diminished (and thus their ability to pay dividends) if they are found liable for fires or effect rolling blackouts as a “solution”. The pension funds could invest in something else instead.
They suspended dividends two years ago https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-suspends-d...
Bonuses are something that’s easy to get outraged by, but look like an infinitesimal fraction of the business numbers. A judge approved a $235M bonus structure across 10,000 employees[1], while the wildfire liabilities are at least $18B [2], their 4-year infrastructure investment plan is $28B [3], and their top-line annual revenue is $17B. How many competent execs are going to want any part of that shitshow? $235M doesn’t sound like enough…
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Judge-approves-...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-09/pge-looks-...
[3] https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page...
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Judge-approves-...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-09/pge-looks-...
[3] https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page...
Dividends was listed before bonuses. It is clear that the primary role of the bonuses is to generate outrage at them giving themselves bonuses for such bad performance.
Dividends have been very substantial, and evidently outcompeted maintenance. The lawsuits will collect more data in discovery.
Make no mistake, the outage and the threat are attempts at coercion, trying to force California to indemnify them, for free, against their own very deliberate negligence.
If PGE does not want to be a public utility anymore, California should confiscate their assets and turn them over to someone who does.
Dividends have been very substantial, and evidently outcompeted maintenance. The lawsuits will collect more data in discovery.
Make no mistake, the outage and the threat are attempts at coercion, trying to force California to indemnify them, for free, against their own very deliberate negligence.
If PGE does not want to be a public utility anymore, California should confiscate their assets and turn them over to someone who does.
Ultimately it's a consequence of privatization. Power in California (and particularly PG&E) has been poorly managed for decades and focused on profit at the expense of safety measures, maintenance, etc. Even if these blackouts were a necessary safety measure, the way they were performed is a great example of this - they failed to properly notify customers, their website was broken, their services available for people with medical needs were inadequate, etc. The only way to explain how poorly it was handled is cost-cutting - they had plenty of time in advance to prepare for this.
I'm not really sure whether strong regulatory oversight of PG&E would fix things or if the state just needs to take over. I'm sure privatized power works in other places but I've lived in this state for decades and PG&E has always been a disaster company with a high death count that pays out to investors and execs aggressively.
I'm not really sure whether strong regulatory oversight of PG&E would fix things or if the state just needs to take over. I'm sure privatized power works in other places but I've lived in this state for decades and PG&E has always been a disaster company with a high death count that pays out to investors and execs aggressively.
In SA it's the opposite—govt entities are pitifully incompetent and in debt; Naspers, one of the only state owned companies that went private is I think now close to the most valuable company on the JSE (although they spinned off Prosus to compensate for undervalues Tencent shares).
In any case, maybe Naspers is not what you would want all the state owned entities to turn into? There is always an argument for the risks of privitasation as well...
In any case, maybe Naspers is not what you would want all the state owned entities to turn into? There is always an argument for the risks of privitasation as well...
it's a consequence of privatization
Also South African here, I don't think it would be the same set of problems.
Seems like less of an incompetence/malice thing and more like a long history of bad strategies with grid infrastructure and power generation.
California has been constantly lowering its power stability throughout the day by shutting down reliable power plants for more intermittent solar and wind farms, without building the storage needed to avoid a blackout.
On the infrastructure side, it seems like there hasn't been much recent investment, and as power sources get further and further from the consumer the likelihood of a problem on some section of the lines increases.
Problems with power lines is an unfortunate reality of states where population centers are spread fairly far apart (we deal with this in Canada too). They're very expensive, especially long distance ones, so it can be hard to make incentives for infrastructure upgrades.
Seems like less of an incompetence/malice thing and more like a long history of bad strategies with grid infrastructure and power generation.
California has been constantly lowering its power stability throughout the day by shutting down reliable power plants for more intermittent solar and wind farms, without building the storage needed to avoid a blackout.
On the infrastructure side, it seems like there hasn't been much recent investment, and as power sources get further and further from the consumer the likelihood of a problem on some section of the lines increases.
Problems with power lines is an unfortunate reality of states where population centers are spread fairly far apart (we deal with this in Canada too). They're very expensive, especially long distance ones, so it can be hard to make incentives for infrastructure upgrades.
I am not from US but this smells as if PG&E tried to force California and general population to demand PG&E to be deemed not responsible for fires.
That's definitely a dimension of what's happening, none of the utilities have ever been cool with the nebulous liability presented by inverse condemnation. I think if anyone were in their shoes, they wouldn't be either.
PG&E knows that they're way less liable for damage caused by service interruptions than they see they are for being responsible for wildfires. They're doing what California wants them to even if it's not the intent of the law.
That's mainly why I think seizing PG&E doesn't solve your problems in the short/medium term. If the state owned their lines tomorrow, they haven't seen the last wildfire. I just don't see a scenario in which the state is as eager to pick as high a number when determining liabilities.
PG&E knows that they're way less liable for damage caused by service interruptions than they see they are for being responsible for wildfires. They're doing what California wants them to even if it's not the intent of the law.
That's mainly why I think seizing PG&E doesn't solve your problems in the short/medium term. If the state owned their lines tomorrow, they haven't seen the last wildfire. I just don't see a scenario in which the state is as eager to pick as high a number when determining liabilities.
Unless I'm missing something this completely ignores the decades of mismanagement and paying huge bonuses/salaries instead of reinvesting in infrastructure. PG&E put themselves in this position should be held accountable.
That's not really my point, and all I can say about that is that executive compensation, dividends, expected revenue, those get presented in a utility's rate cases, I think California's general rate cases are every 3 years. The CPUC and the state was in the room every time PG&E laid out their plans for these decades of mismanagement.
I'll admit it's certainly plausible I'm being too pessimistic, I don't know what about people's experience makes them think a public entity is going to invest the proper amount of money in a utility in the last let's say 30 years. And when they ask what you diverted billions of dollars to, you have to get up and say "vegitation management"
My problem is that none of the risks have properly been priced, and no amount of pillory about huge bonuses is going to solve the problem, because that money was never going to be enough.
Electricity rates are supposed to compensate the risk of doing business. Claw back all the profit you want, the rates have likely been too low, and likely egregiously low to compensate for the risk that if there's a particularly bad wildfire, you get sued into the shadow realm.
I'll admit it's certainly plausible I'm being too pessimistic, I don't know what about people's experience makes them think a public entity is going to invest the proper amount of money in a utility in the last let's say 30 years. And when they ask what you diverted billions of dollars to, you have to get up and say "vegitation management"
My problem is that none of the risks have properly been priced, and no amount of pillory about huge bonuses is going to solve the problem, because that money was never going to be enough.
Electricity rates are supposed to compensate the risk of doing business. Claw back all the profit you want, the rates have likely been too low, and likely egregiously low to compensate for the risk that if there's a particularly bad wildfire, you get sued into the shadow realm.
Right, I'd be sympathetic to this liability argument if they weren't extracting profits and neglecting maintenance. Obviously the fire issue is bigger than a single utility, but their actions here leave them little public good will.
I would demonstrate my sympathy for their desire not to be a public utility anymore by confiscating their assets, firing their management, and turning their assets over to someone who does want to be a public utility.
What you describe is called communism.
PG&E is a company with owners and while you may not like it you can't just take other peoples' property.
There are appropriate venues to vent your frustration. There is judicial system where you can go and defend your own rights if you feel PG&E stepped on it. You can go and vote for somebody to step up and solve the problem. You can also make other people aware of the problem by using your right to free speech.
PG&E is a company with owners and while you may not like it you can't just take other peoples' property.
There are appropriate venues to vent your frustration. There is judicial system where you can go and defend your own rights if you feel PG&E stepped on it. You can go and vote for somebody to step up and solve the problem. You can also make other people aware of the problem by using your right to free speech.
No. A public utility is permitted what would be anti-trust violations, and handed a monopoly, in exchange for acting in the public interest. When they abandon the public interest, they have violated their end of the bargain. The stockholders are responsible to prevent that; if they fail, they lose their investment.
The educational system has failed you if you never learned about this. Anticipating your next objection: no, public education is also not Communism.
Communism, by numerous well-attested examples, means exterminating millions of citizens for no offense but existing. I don't find anyone proposing that. Here.
The educational system has failed you if you never learned about this. Anticipating your next objection: no, public education is also not Communism.
Communism, by numerous well-attested examples, means exterminating millions of citizens for no offense but existing. I don't find anyone proposing that. Here.
The amount of home generators is going to quickly increase, which will do wonders for air quality when the power lines are cut.
Purchased by who, though? The cost of living is already so high that only the wealthy will be buying them.
You can buy a decent 'emergency' generator (aka high air pollution and noise) for ~ $500 sufficient to run most homes. Compared to cost of living in California, that is dirt cheap (a week or less of living expenses).
One problem with these emergency portable generators of course, is they lack safety components to stop them from catching fire. So we might end up with notable fires caused by generators used because PG&E shut off power to 'stop fires'. It shifts the liability to the consumer though, so PG&E is off the hook.
Few people really believed PG&E was going to do this, so a lot of people haven't purchased equipment yet. We'll see how it shapes up long term.
One problem with these emergency portable generators of course, is they lack safety components to stop them from catching fire. So we might end up with notable fires caused by generators used because PG&E shut off power to 'stop fires'. It shifts the liability to the consumer though, so PG&E is off the hook.
Few people really believed PG&E was going to do this, so a lot of people haven't purchased equipment yet. We'll see how it shapes up long term.
And if that's still too much, you can walk away for a $350 one at harbor freight (whether it starts again the second time you need it to run is certainly questionable)
As people turn to home power generation, PG&E will lose revenue. So, PG&E will suffer in the longer term as they lose customers. Not very good business planning.
Keeping a gas or diesel generator fueled and running for days at a time is not super cheap. Plus if your whole city's power is cut and everybody else is running their generators, there's a risk of fuel price increases or even fuel shortages.
Solar & batteries are a solution but people won't adopt as a solution with this sort of timeline and current solar/battery prices. There'd need to be a slow but certain rise in PG&E prices and a some sort of tax rebate to really get people to convert over.
Solar & batteries are a solution but people won't adopt as a solution with this sort of timeline and current solar/battery prices. There'd need to be a slow but certain rise in PG&E prices and a some sort of tax rebate to really get people to convert over.
Reliability is what sells me on electric supply. Take that away, I will find something more reliable, and I will make the investment in local, personal generation if there isn't a source.
Local, personal generation is usually incredibly inefficient due to loading factors (you need to buy a generator that can handle most of your peak load, but they are only efficient at roughly half that - so your idle load is a huge waste, and when near peak you will be horribly inefficient).
Maintenance is also a huge pain - I've got an off grid cabin, and I can assure you, you will quickly tire of dealing with it if you are using it as your day to day power source.
Backup (propane or natural gas) generators that auto kick in aren't a bad option, but are much more expensive (about an order of magnitude higher).
Maintenance is also a huge pain - I've got an off grid cabin, and I can assure you, you will quickly tire of dealing with it if you are using it as your day to day power source.
Backup (propane or natural gas) generators that auto kick in aren't a bad option, but are much more expensive (about an order of magnitude higher).
[deleted]
Or Tesla is going to sell heaps of Powerwalls and solar panels
Having looked at all of these options recently, I can say very few people would chose Powerwalls and solar over a standby generator. A whole house generator capable of running everything in your home, including HVAC, for many days on end will run ~$10-14k installed. A single Powerwall alone costs about that much and can't distribute nearly as much power as the generator.
How much fuel does the generator consume? What is the switch-over time?
Would it be useful for service interruptions or only full blackouts?
Would it be useful for service interruptions or only full blackouts?
The switch over time is around 30 seconds. When your power is restored from the grid, it switched back seamlessly.
Fuel is a great question. I have never looked at the consumption. Mine runs off the natural gas line, so I have no tank to fill. With this setup I feel I am in good shape for short and extended outages.
Fuel is a great question. I have never looked at the consumption. Mine runs off the natural gas line, so I have no tank to fill. With this setup I feel I am in good shape for short and extended outages.
> Mine runs off the natural gas line
This has always felt risky to me. Sure, your setup will work for a garden-variety power outage, but not when it really matters like an earthquake or other natural disaster.
This has always felt risky to me. Sure, your setup will work for a garden-variety power outage, but not when it really matters like an earthquake or other natural disaster.
My uncle lives in a place that loses power often. His system is propane. When the power goes out you might notice the lights flicker. I don't know how much fuel it consumes.
What state are you in?
My impression of wealthy Californians is that they'd rather not have a noisy stinky polluting generator running for days requiring fuel deliveries, and if there's a "green" option that requires zero fuel, makes no noise or pollution, and is within their means, they'll prefer it.
Not to mention generators are a bit of a maintenance and operational nuisance in my experience, at least the diesel piston motor kind I've used in the past as power backup in datacenters. Most households would rather not have yet another piston engine to keep in good working order.
My impression of wealthy Californians is that they'd rather not have a noisy stinky polluting generator running for days requiring fuel deliveries, and if there's a "green" option that requires zero fuel, makes no noise or pollution, and is within their means, they'll prefer it.
Not to mention generators are a bit of a maintenance and operational nuisance in my experience, at least the diesel piston motor kind I've used in the past as power backup in datacenters. Most households would rather not have yet another piston engine to keep in good working order.
The majority of solar panel systems that allow feeding excessive energy back into the grid won't work in a blackout to allow line workers to completely isolate a section for line maintenance, in addition to phase synchronization issues on some of the cheaper systems too. As 99% of home IC generators are designed to function only when whatever they are powering is completely disconnected from the grid they don't have this issue.
Isn't that the whole point of having the Powerwall in the system?
You're describing conventional battery-less residential grid-tied solar installations.
I specifically described Tesla Powerwall + solar.
You're describing conventional battery-less residential grid-tied solar installations.
I specifically described Tesla Powerwall + solar.
I asked this in another thread and got a healthy dose of downvotes instead of an answer. But why can’t they do a controlled burn along the path of the power lines?
If it’s too risky they could even do it at a different time of year when there’s less risk.
If it’s too risky they could even do it at a different time of year when there’s less risk.
It's not just alone the paths, but also near distribution stations, which are closer to urban areas where you can't do burns. Some lines are close to urban areas. Some areas can't be burned at all because the smoke always hits urban areas. And before you can burn you have to clear a long way from the power poles themselves so that they don't get damaged. And so on.
Controlled burns aren't all that controlled in reality. It's hard to do in places that are near human settlements.
(I do disaster planning work in Australia, and while I'm not an expert on bush fires or controlled burning by a long shot, I don't see why those things would be different between the two places).
Controlled burns aren't all that controlled in reality. It's hard to do in places that are near human settlements.
(I do disaster planning work in Australia, and while I'm not an expert on bush fires or controlled burning by a long shot, I don't see why those things would be different between the two places).
PG&E maintains over 18,000 miles of transmission lines.
So the question is how many of those go through fire prone areas. Perhaps there’s a 90/10 rule for where to expend the most effort.
I was curious myself and this article seems to describe the issue well:
https://www.kqed.org/science/1927354/controlled-burns-can-he...
TL;DR it's a mix of human resources and education issues
https://www.kqed.org/science/1927354/controlled-burns-can-he...
TL;DR it's a mix of human resources and education issues
There are a few related risks coming into play here, and controlled burns specifically along power transmission paths may not be appropriate.
Fire risk largely boils down to:
1. Ignition.
2. Fuel.
3. Weather.
4. Endangered resources, particularly but not exclusively structures.
5. Fire spread mechanisms.
Weather is largely beyond control, but includes both immediate (high winds, low humidities, high temps, dry soil and vegetation) and long-term (drought, flood-drought cycles) elements.
Ignition is where PG&E are largely concerned. Electric lines and other equipment can and have caused previous fires. Keep in mind that activities such as mowing grass, getting flat tyres, and hammering have caused previous major conflagrations. At this point, ignition is all but a certainty.
Fuel includes both plants and structures. Due to 80+ years of near-total wildfire suppression, and exacerbated by climate change and plant disease, fuel loads are extreme.
Wildfires are typically wind and ember driven, rather than simply being a wall of frame. Hotspots and ignition points occur outside the principle fire front by distances of hundreds to thousands of metres -- a quarter mile to several miles in Freedom Units.
Structures specifically are vulnerable to wildfire largely when embers impinge on structures or immediately surrounding flammables: exposed decks, surrounding brush, eves, and the like. If immediate ignition can be limited, through architictureal, landscaping, or treatment (sprinkler, foam, gel) mitigations, most structures are actually fairly resilient, though heat and smoke damage can still result. A near wall-of-flame approach can still shatter window glass and ignite interiors through radiant heat.
To your suggestion:
What safes transmission lines more than anything is clearing any nearby brush or trees. You don't need to burn it away, you simply need plant matter not to contact transmission wires and equipment. This is generally an easier, and far more controllable approach than even prescribed burns. Road and heliocopter-based tree-trimming and removal can and do work.
Prescribed burns can work on overall fuel load. This is a treatment applied generally at a regional level, affecting acres to miles of terrain. It's generally best done during or immediately after the wet season (to avoid uncontrolled burns), and away from structures, including power equipment.
One of the huge weaknesses of many utility systems is adequate monitoring. For all the industry advocacy I've seen of "smart meters" and the like, applying sensors, monitors, and active monitoring of transmission lines, gas likes, water systems, pipelines, etc., seems absolutely primative. Smart meters are revenue-generating (or loss-avoiding), equipment monitoring and controls apparently aren't seen that way.
Finally: construction and emergency planning around wildfire events clearly needs to be upgraded. The good thing about institutional and methodical approaches is that they can incorporate collective wisdom. The bad thing is that they are frequently reactive, conservative, and cruft-ridden. Early-stage approaches are often grossly inadequate, late-stage approaches are often geared at outdated assumptions, experience, and methods.
Paradise, CA, had a wildfire disaster plan. It was abolsolutely inadequate to the situation faced. The 2018 Camp Fire began at 6:33 am. First units were on scene slightly before 7 am. As of 7:34, 911 operators were still telling Paradise residents there was no immediate danger. (https://ktla.com/2019/02/01/first-camp-fire-911-calls-reveal...). The fire entered Paradise at 8 am, some 20k (16 miles) from the ignition point, and evacuation was not ordered until about 10 minutes later, and then for only sections of the town, as the fire response plan called for staged evacuations from specific zones. Residents died in their homes awaiting specific evacuation orders which either never came, were transmitted over inadequate channels, or were never received.
Video interview / docu covering many of these points: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gxt7L4x_NQo
As with other megadisasters, a huge contributing failing was of imagination and understanding by planners, authorities, responders, and residents, both in the moment and for years beforehand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_(2018_Wildfire)
PG&E were directly responsible for part of the risks, and were absolutely negligent in this and other recent disasters such as the 2017 Northern California wildfires and 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion. Though the ultimate fire was all but certainly inevitable.
I happened to travel along the next W-E highway north of Paradise in 2015, taking CA-32 and CA-36 from Chico, CA, to Mt. Lassen, in early October. I was struck by how bone-dry the forest was, as well as the temperatures (~90F) and humidity (low). Thankfully winds were nonexistent. But as someone who's spent a fair bit of time driving through remote, mountainous, and forested terrain, I felt distinctly uneasy and could directly perceive the risks. I was happy to be through the region, despite its beauty (and it really is a fantastic drive).
(I've done a number of rural-country road trips since 2000, and the memories of both fire scars and regions later consumed by major fires has left a strong impression.)
News of the Camp Fire three years later did not surprise me. The friend I'd visited in Chico was my first source of news of the fire via social media posts.
There are numerous videos of the Camp (and other) wildfires on YouTube. This is a well-produced synoptic overview by Vox which does a fair job of conveying the scope, scale, speed, and effects. Nothing but seeing in person can truly do the phenomenon justice.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nwup6tA_OzQ
Fire risk largely boils down to:
1. Ignition.
2. Fuel.
3. Weather.
4. Endangered resources, particularly but not exclusively structures.
5. Fire spread mechanisms.
Weather is largely beyond control, but includes both immediate (high winds, low humidities, high temps, dry soil and vegetation) and long-term (drought, flood-drought cycles) elements.
Ignition is where PG&E are largely concerned. Electric lines and other equipment can and have caused previous fires. Keep in mind that activities such as mowing grass, getting flat tyres, and hammering have caused previous major conflagrations. At this point, ignition is all but a certainty.
Fuel includes both plants and structures. Due to 80+ years of near-total wildfire suppression, and exacerbated by climate change and plant disease, fuel loads are extreme.
Wildfires are typically wind and ember driven, rather than simply being a wall of frame. Hotspots and ignition points occur outside the principle fire front by distances of hundreds to thousands of metres -- a quarter mile to several miles in Freedom Units.
Structures specifically are vulnerable to wildfire largely when embers impinge on structures or immediately surrounding flammables: exposed decks, surrounding brush, eves, and the like. If immediate ignition can be limited, through architictureal, landscaping, or treatment (sprinkler, foam, gel) mitigations, most structures are actually fairly resilient, though heat and smoke damage can still result. A near wall-of-flame approach can still shatter window glass and ignite interiors through radiant heat.
To your suggestion:
What safes transmission lines more than anything is clearing any nearby brush or trees. You don't need to burn it away, you simply need plant matter not to contact transmission wires and equipment. This is generally an easier, and far more controllable approach than even prescribed burns. Road and heliocopter-based tree-trimming and removal can and do work.
Prescribed burns can work on overall fuel load. This is a treatment applied generally at a regional level, affecting acres to miles of terrain. It's generally best done during or immediately after the wet season (to avoid uncontrolled burns), and away from structures, including power equipment.
One of the huge weaknesses of many utility systems is adequate monitoring. For all the industry advocacy I've seen of "smart meters" and the like, applying sensors, monitors, and active monitoring of transmission lines, gas likes, water systems, pipelines, etc., seems absolutely primative. Smart meters are revenue-generating (or loss-avoiding), equipment monitoring and controls apparently aren't seen that way.
Finally: construction and emergency planning around wildfire events clearly needs to be upgraded. The good thing about institutional and methodical approaches is that they can incorporate collective wisdom. The bad thing is that they are frequently reactive, conservative, and cruft-ridden. Early-stage approaches are often grossly inadequate, late-stage approaches are often geared at outdated assumptions, experience, and methods.
Paradise, CA, had a wildfire disaster plan. It was abolsolutely inadequate to the situation faced. The 2018 Camp Fire began at 6:33 am. First units were on scene slightly before 7 am. As of 7:34, 911 operators were still telling Paradise residents there was no immediate danger. (https://ktla.com/2019/02/01/first-camp-fire-911-calls-reveal...). The fire entered Paradise at 8 am, some 20k (16 miles) from the ignition point, and evacuation was not ordered until about 10 minutes later, and then for only sections of the town, as the fire response plan called for staged evacuations from specific zones. Residents died in their homes awaiting specific evacuation orders which either never came, were transmitted over inadequate channels, or were never received.
Video interview / docu covering many of these points: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gxt7L4x_NQo
As with other megadisasters, a huge contributing failing was of imagination and understanding by planners, authorities, responders, and residents, both in the moment and for years beforehand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_(2018_Wildfire)
PG&E were directly responsible for part of the risks, and were absolutely negligent in this and other recent disasters such as the 2017 Northern California wildfires and 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion. Though the ultimate fire was all but certainly inevitable.
I happened to travel along the next W-E highway north of Paradise in 2015, taking CA-32 and CA-36 from Chico, CA, to Mt. Lassen, in early October. I was struck by how bone-dry the forest was, as well as the temperatures (~90F) and humidity (low). Thankfully winds were nonexistent. But as someone who's spent a fair bit of time driving through remote, mountainous, and forested terrain, I felt distinctly uneasy and could directly perceive the risks. I was happy to be through the region, despite its beauty (and it really is a fantastic drive).
(I've done a number of rural-country road trips since 2000, and the memories of both fire scars and regions later consumed by major fires has left a strong impression.)
News of the Camp Fire three years later did not surprise me. The friend I'd visited in Chico was my first source of news of the fire via social media posts.
There are numerous videos of the Camp (and other) wildfires on YouTube. This is a well-produced synoptic overview by Vox which does a fair job of conveying the scope, scale, speed, and effects. Nothing but seeing in person can truly do the phenomenon justice.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nwup6tA_OzQ
If this is the best that the private sector can do, it seems like it is probably time to let the public sector take over.
The liability risk from the fires is so high nobody is going to want to invest money in PG&E to fully clear all the fire prone lines. Also significantly raising prices is usually not allowed. Instead the existing share holders just try to bleed out whatever money they can.
When the free market does not work for a necessary public service it should be time for the government to take over.
When the free market does not work for a necessary public service it should be time for the government to take over.
When they are not allowed to raise prices, you can hardly call it a free market.
I am from the east coast, and compared to where I grew up, the power grid is way more reliable. Where I grew up, the utilities were not undergrounded, and many neighborhoods were heavily forested. Whenever there was a big front of thunderstorms in summer or, worse, an ice storm in the winter, large swaths of the area would lose all of their utilities besides natural gas. Sometimes these outages would last several days.
It was inconvenient, but nobody wanted to pay for the cost of undergrounding utilities, so it was something you just dealt with. A few people bought generators, but most didn't. The only time the outages really caused hardship was during ice storms, but fortunately those were pretty rare.
I now live in CA. PG&E made the right call here. A couple days of no electricity is better than burning an entire town to the ground in a firestorm.
It was inconvenient, but nobody wanted to pay for the cost of undergrounding utilities, so it was something you just dealt with. A few people bought generators, but most didn't. The only time the outages really caused hardship was during ice storms, but fortunately those were pretty rare.
I now live in CA. PG&E made the right call here. A couple days of no electricity is better than burning an entire town to the ground in a firestorm.
Really, California is considered the tech hub of the world, how is this ok ?
Well, like hundred years of propaganda starting from the Edward Bernays times convinced generations to accept this broken system of privately owned monopolies, which has this inherent perverse incentive to rent seek with no limit and neglect actual products or services they are supposed to provide.
We can't live in the forest. Building in the tinderbox is CA's equivalent of TX's building in the flood plain.
You can, there are some fairly straightforward principles of building in these environments to prevent the spread of fires, the technique works. Now, getting folks to care about fixing their homes, when they are insured for such a small proportion of the costs they generate, is a taller order.
I don't understand how the powerlines can affect to wildfires. They can put powerlines in any place or how it works?
In my country (Spain) there are laws to say exactly how much meters of free space are needed depending on what capacity has the powerline. That means that you can't build anything there and that if a powerline goes in your forestal terrain you can't plant any tree there (thats why people don't like powerlines over theirs lands).
That also does that all the forestal ground have a good number of firewalls because of the powerlines.
It’s really sad how tribalist politics have pervasively overtaken rational discussions. I dream of discourse that doesn’t devolve into conversations about leftists, conservatives, and various interest groups.
I was in CA last year with the major wildfires going on. Not there this time, so am curious if this approach worked this year.
If yes, I suppose that controlled, scheduled blackouts is a positive move (not a competent one given that this is CA we are talking about) as it avoids a huge loss of lives, property, forest and avoids a ton of air pollution. (The generators are gonna cause it anyways. :( )
On the flip side, is PG&E using this time to improve infrastructure or should expect it to extend the timeline by another decade in 7-8 years from now?
If yes, I suppose that controlled, scheduled blackouts is a positive move (not a competent one given that this is CA we are talking about) as it avoids a huge loss of lives, property, forest and avoids a ton of air pollution. (The generators are gonna cause it anyways. :( )
On the flip side, is PG&E using this time to improve infrastructure or should expect it to extend the timeline by another decade in 7-8 years from now?
[deleted]
this is what happens when you sue a company for something that was an acceptable risk. it now becomes unacceptable and this is the consequence.
I think you're right on target with that observation. A compromise of limited liability and aggressive infrastructure upgrades may be the way to go.
Context from the official statement is that PG&E does expect to require blackouts, but it will not be the same magnitude of black outs as seen a few weeks ago.
Where did you infer that? Literally the first sentence is...
>The CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. told California energy regulators that the state will likely see blackouts for another 10 years like the one imposed last week that left as many as 800,000 customers without power.
Not only that, but it's impossible to claim that future blackouts won't be of the same magnitude. The blackouts are determined by weather patterns, none of which can be predicted this far out. It's entirely possible we get another weather forecast in a year that calls for the same region-wide high winds and dryness.
>The CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. told California energy regulators that the state will likely see blackouts for another 10 years like the one imposed last week that left as many as 800,000 customers without power.
Not only that, but it's impossible to claim that future blackouts won't be of the same magnitude. The blackouts are determined by weather patterns, none of which can be predicted this far out. It's entirely possible we get another weather forecast in a year that calls for the same region-wide high winds and dryness.
if the ceo can’t figure it out he needs to be replaced.
I've lived in two developing countries in my life, and its interesting how CA is morphing back into that. Small enclaves of super-rich, very high price communities where everything works, surrounded by large swaths of shanty towns where nothing works.
Conversely I find it interesting how quickly discussions of California quickly morph into the implication that there is little worth considering outside of the specific economy of 'silicon valley'.
I can think of no one - from the people I've known since Kindergarten from the people I've met in the last few months at my new job - who can be described as 'super-rich' or living in 'shanty-towns'. There are plenty of working class folk living quite comfortably but their stories don't fit into our 'outrage culture' so they are conveniently ignored.
I can think of no one - from the people I've known since Kindergarten from the people I've met in the last few months at my new job - who can be described as 'super-rich' or living in 'shanty-towns'. There are plenty of working class folk living quite comfortably but their stories don't fit into our 'outrage culture' so they are conveniently ignored.
This comment makes no sense. In developing countries power gets shut off, because there is not enough of it. CA actually over produces power. The shut off is a result of acute climate change and dry conditions that have affected the state. And unlike a developing country, a corporation in a developed country is responding to legal risk and shutting power down. This is exactly opposite of a developing country, where corporations face no legal risk of their actions at all
>The shut off is a result of acute climate change and dry conditions that have affected the state.
No, no, nope. They are shutting off power to aged infrastructure. This is the one time a global warming culprit is using global warming to gain sympathy. They refuse to update extremely aged and damaged power lines. The same lines that can fall due to normal hazardous weather. Newer ones are not in as much risk.
Look at a map of the blackouts. They aren't large grids. They are specific small areas.
No, no, nope. They are shutting off power to aged infrastructure. This is the one time a global warming culprit is using global warming to gain sympathy. They refuse to update extremely aged and damaged power lines. The same lines that can fall due to normal hazardous weather. Newer ones are not in as much risk.
Look at a map of the blackouts. They aren't large grids. They are specific small areas.
Power consumers won’t make the distinction between both scenarios; their power is off in both cases.
That doesn’t equate to “developing country” like living standards as the OP was suggesting. There is a distinction. As someone who actually was born and raised in India, this is not even remotely the same thing. It is like saying traffic jams in NYC are like Mumbai, therefore NYC is like a developing country
> high price communities where everything works, surrounded by large swaths of shanty towns where nothing works.
This isn't something that's only attributable to CA. Economically depressed towns relatively close to highly concentrated areas of wealth are all over America. Also, the scale of poverty in places like the south, Appalachia, the rust belt, rural America often meets or exceeds that of third-world countries.
This isn't something that's only attributable to CA. Economically depressed towns relatively close to highly concentrated areas of wealth are all over America. Also, the scale of poverty in places like the south, Appalachia, the rust belt, rural America often meets or exceeds that of third-world countries.
[deleted]
Oh there's other poor places, it's okay guys. Let them keep shooting up and shitting in the street.
When you dismiss it like that, you're giving up on a solution and letting it fester.
When you dismiss it like that, you're giving up on a solution and letting it fester.
Ya except Mill Valley and Sausalito in Marin county both experienced blackouts during the most recent shut down. Both of those cities being rather wealthy.
After living in LA for a few years, it certainly does feel exactly the way you describe within the city.
But those juxtapositions are literal blocks apart from each other. The Google campus is next door to a shanty town in Venice, and their security sic the police on them for any minor infractions (or just made up ones). Very similar situation with the redevelopment downtown.
It really does give you a bleak portrait of the tolerance for inhumanity within the context liberal Capitalism. California is ostensibly as “wacky leftist” as the US gets and it’s a bleak, cruel place in many regards.
But those juxtapositions are literal blocks apart from each other. The Google campus is next door to a shanty town in Venice, and their security sic the police on them for any minor infractions (or just made up ones). Very similar situation with the redevelopment downtown.
It really does give you a bleak portrait of the tolerance for inhumanity within the context liberal Capitalism. California is ostensibly as “wacky leftist” as the US gets and it’s a bleak, cruel place in many regards.
Can you describe the basis for your "Google sic the police on the homeless" comment? There was a shitty local magazine article about this but my personal experience does not match this perception at all.
I’m friends with housing activists in LA who work on these issues. There was a similar thing with Google Maps cars conveniently showing up right after violent camp dispersals in my old neighborhood.
Here’s an article about it from back in 2015:
https://pando.com/2015/06/22/we-got-geeks/
Here’s an article about it from back in 2015:
https://pando.com/2015/06/22/we-got-geeks/
It’s the same in Brazil.
We are basically converging to become Rio de Janeiro minus the natural beauty.
Well and the shantytowns in rio have better views.
rayiner(6)
I would take away the opposite conclusion. Left-wing government isn’t the solution in California any more than it is in developing countries and failed states; it is the problem.
Public utility districts have been very successful in places they have been permitted to operate, including in the state capital, Sacramento.
Of course PGE spends millions every year lobbying against them.
Of course PGE spends millions every year lobbying against them.
[deleted]
[flagged]
I think you are conflating entirely two different concepts. NIMBYism is a unique California value and closely related to California history rather than a true left ideology. In fact, leftist policies are for more denser urban development, public transit etc as you can see in European countries
[deleted]
"Liberalism" is the "hipsters" of modern leftist politics...
fallingfrog(1)
I’m not sure where you get those ideas? Where I live in NYC, they recently shut down a major street to cars so buses could run more easily — and the furthest left want to expand that. The left leaning people I know want to close jails, not build better ones elsewhere. We opposed an Amazon campus in our backyard specifically because it would drive up rents — and the furthest left want rent control.
Liberals are obviously not a monolith of only ethically consistent people, but I definitely don’t see the pervasive NIMBYism.
Liberals are obviously not a monolith of only ethically consistent people, but I definitely don’t see the pervasive NIMBYism.
I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Here the same people who yell for affordable housing also go to court to block construction of new towers. The same people who complain about buses stuck in traffic on W 86th St also prevent the introduction of universal metered parking and congestion pricing.
But my original comment was mainly addressing the NIMBYism in California. Look at SF: it's a low-rise city of sky-high demand and prices. Who's preventing new construction? The same local NIMBYs who enjoy rising property values due to severely restricted supply of land that can be built on.
But my original comment was mainly addressing the NIMBYism in California. Look at SF: it's a low-rise city of sky-high demand and prices. Who's preventing new construction? The same local NIMBYs who enjoy rising property values due to severely restricted supply of land that can be built on.
I until very recently lived downtown, where congestion pricing would actually take effect, and the people most in support were again the furthest left.
SF does seem to be more NIMBYish, but I’m not sure why you think it’s a microcosm of liberalism.
SF does seem to be more NIMBYish, but I’m not sure why you think it’s a microcosm of liberalism.
The Left in New York City are largely socialists by now, who had enough of a long-standing working-class tradition to avoid allying with liberal NIMBYs.
He's honestly pretty spot on about liberals, as the spot on the spectrum in between conservatives and social democrats.
He's honestly pretty spot on about liberals, as the spot on the spectrum in between conservatives and social democrats.
Maybe so, but I don’t read the original comment as a critique of centrist Democrats in particular. (I also don’t think centrist Democrats are alone in the gap between their professed values and their actual ones.)
California has one of the lowest average IQs of any state. If you remove the tech workers and the old-time republicans, there's not many big brains left to go around.
We've banned this account for using HN for ideological battle. This site exists for intellectual curiosity, and one of those things destroys the other.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
“If you remove the smart people, IQ goes down”
[Citation Needed]
Nothing personal, but this kind of comment really grind my gears. When I read a claim like the one made in that comment, I take that as a lead and am grateful that someone brought light to that POV so I can explore more, e.g. freaking google it.
The [Citation Needed] approach would make all comments boringly long and harder to write, all conversations white-paper like, which isn't bad of course, but has its place.
How many times I felt lazy and just dropped my comment because I knew that the [Citation Needed] comments were bound to come, and while I have a good insight about the subject, I had no will to spend more energy on that nor any inclination for taking flak from lazier unconstructive commenters.
The [Citation Needed] approach would make all comments boringly long and harder to write, all conversations white-paper like, which isn't bad of course, but has its place.
How many times I felt lazy and just dropped my comment because I knew that the [Citation Needed] comments were bound to come, and while I have a good insight about the subject, I had no will to spend more energy on that nor any inclination for taking flak from lazier unconstructive commenters.
This was the first google result. California is 48th. And that of course includes all the smarties in silicon valley who I assume bring up the average.
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/we-compared-average-iq-sc...
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/we-compared-average-iq-sc...
This never goes over well when I say it but, on my most recent trip through America driving across 5 States, much of what we drove through did not look like what I would consider developed. For hundreds of miles the only towns we'd come across had nothing but fast food places a gas station and usually multiple churches and then just houses, no schools, no grocery stores, no hospitals or doctors, though usually a pharmacy, and not much else for at least a hundred miles in any direction from these places. Between these would just be highways dotted with billboards telling you not to kill yourself or smoke meth. You could always see the 'towns' coming about 50 miles away though, first you'd see the massive McDonald's sign in the distance, then maybe a Burger king sign or a gas station sign, a massive monolith spiking 100m into the sky. A lot of it felt really bleak.
Please don't start doing this on HN again. Nationalistic and regional flamewar is off topic here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16279406
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16279406
I wonder why that never goes well, because it's an incredibly offensive and out of touch statement.
Yes there are schools, pharmacies, and grocery stores, you just didn't see them because you were passing through.
That is nowhere near the level of homeless shooting up in the street, it's just a small community.
Of course you see signs and gas stations, because you are driving through the towns on the highway...
Yes there are schools, pharmacies, and grocery stores, you just didn't see them because you were passing through.
That is nowhere near the level of homeless shooting up in the street, it's just a small community.
Of course you see signs and gas stations, because you are driving through the towns on the highway...
And, where else are people "driving through" supposed to get fuel, exactly? If not for the towns they pass through? Good grief...
Well they must have been hidden from the mapbook and Google maps too, because couldn't find them there either.
That's because most of the country is wild and rural which non americans do not seem to get. This is a good thing and something without precedent in Europe where the wilderness has been stamped out
That's simply a function of usable land. There is very little desert in Europe. Much of the Alps and the Nordic region is "wild". Much of Southeastern Spain is fairly desolate.
Much of the US "wild" area is simply not economically useful for major settlement, with the possible exception of the Pacific Northwest and far Northern California.
A drive through rural France looked much the same as a drive through Texas, in terms of how often you'd encounter a town and the setup for a particular town. The major difference being that the transition from major city to rural is a lot faster since France has restricted urban sprawl quite a bit more.
Much of the US "wild" area is simply not economically useful for major settlement, with the possible exception of the Pacific Northwest and far Northern California.
A drive through rural France looked much the same as a drive through Texas, in terms of how often you'd encounter a town and the setup for a particular town. The major difference being that the transition from major city to rural is a lot faster since France has restricted urban sprawl quite a bit more.
You just described most of the Midwest. That geographic structure is just the product of the large agricultural sector. But on many objective measures (home ownership rates, homelessness rates, poverty rates, median purchasing power, school quality, homicide rates), Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Minnesota, etc., significantly outperform California or New York.
Bleak is a relative term. I’d call it “bleak” if young people have to leave the place where they grew up just to be able to afford a house in a decent school district. Where people are tied together by little more than what industry they work in or maybe the fancy gym they go to.
Bleak is a relative term. I’d call it “bleak” if young people have to leave the place where they grew up just to be able to afford a house in a decent school district. Where people are tied together by little more than what industry they work in or maybe the fancy gym they go to.
How can you compare states with little population to a state with 40 mn people ? Of course numbers will look better in a smallish state. Also, how do these states perform when it comes to healthcare access, LGBT rights, environmental changes, renewable energy, immigrant rights ? School quality ? Comparing mostly white states with a state that has 50% 1st or 2nd generation migrants, with non native English speaking parents ? Homicide rates ? SF is on track to have the lowest homicide rate in 50 years. On average, California performs far better than any of the states you mentioned and that is proven by the population differences
> How can you compare states with little population to a state with 40 mn people ? Of course numbers will look better in a smallish state.
These are percentage rates, not absolute numbers, so it's not obvious why the numbers will look better in a smaller state.
> On average, California performs far better than any of the states you mentioned and that is proven by the population differences
California performs worse on many metrics even accounting for demographic differences. For example, in Iowa, Hispanic children score an average of 273 in NAEP's 8th grade math test. In California, they score just 262. In Texas it's 274. Median income for hispanic-headed households in California is about $46,000, versus $48,000 in Iowa. (Adjusted for cost of living, Hispanic households in Iowa have 30% more purchasing power than Hispanic households in California.)
These are percentage rates, not absolute numbers, so it's not obvious why the numbers will look better in a smaller state.
> On average, California performs far better than any of the states you mentioned and that is proven by the population differences
California performs worse on many metrics even accounting for demographic differences. For example, in Iowa, Hispanic children score an average of 273 in NAEP's 8th grade math test. In California, they score just 262. In Texas it's 274. Median income for hispanic-headed households in California is about $46,000, versus $48,000 in Iowa. (Adjusted for cost of living, Hispanic households in Iowa have 30% more purchasing power than Hispanic households in California.)
The Midwest is a lot more diverse than people realize - this comment just betrays a lack of knowledge. The Midwest is a lot more than Iowa cornfields and American flags.
And even Iowa Cornfields are host to some LGBT-friendly communities.
[deleted]
> Small enclaves of super-rich
Indeed, and these same people often constantly prattling on about progressive politics.
Indeed, and these same people often constantly prattling on about progressive politics.
"But Johnson said it could take 10 years before such outages are "really ratcheted down significantly." "
Strikes me as a CEO that suddenly wants very much to have his golden parachute and be out of this pickle.
Strikes me as a CEO that suddenly wants very much to have his golden parachute and be out of this pickle.
But as a more sober and conscientious observer, what are the reasons for this? Is it that fires have been causing too much damage? Is it that the utility companies are slacking? From the article it is not clear whether putting off the power is a successful mitigation strategy. It's a bit unimaginable for California to have the same problems that we have. In our case we have politics that inadequately qualified people are promoted to management and hence my question about whether there is logic to this.
But the main difference is we don't have the same fire issues that California has, or at least, situations where the power lines are the cause of fires.
Edit: We do have fires, but I think we have other (less straightforward/tangible) issues that we debate in our spare time.