PG&E may cut power to 850k California customers this weekend due to fire risk(pgecurrents.com)
pgecurrents.com
PG&E may cut power to 850k California customers this weekend due to fire risk
https://www.pgecurrents.com/2019/10/25/forecasts-indicate-potential-for-historic-wind-event-this-weekend-approximately-850000-customers-notified-that-they-may-be-impacted-beginning-saturday-evening/
137 comments
I'm currently in Paradise. PG&E's PSPSes are not notified consistently or accurately. The power is on as of 10/26/2019 1:35 am, but it may go out at any minute. Also, they don't seem to follow the conditions around the HV lines with actual risks... power was on during high heat periods with winds and low humidity, but out during lower heat.
Decay is slow and gradual to people who live here all of the time. If you're like Chris Hedges and live abroad for some years and come back, the decline is noticeable over a longer timescale. (Slowly boiled frog.) And then there are folks like Chalmers Johnson who predicted empire and democracy are mutually exclusive, and you can see the current US military budget, undeclared wars and hundreds of bases around the world. Some examples of decline include:
- massive corruption of the political establishment
- crackdowns on publishers and journalists who don't tow the establishment line
- apathy of the middle (low voter turn-out)
- electing demagogues
- crumbling infrastructure: roads, bridges
- rust belt / lack of manufacturing
- declining birth rates
- rising xenophobia, provincialism and nationalism
- increase in volatility and political polarization of average people
- grotesque inequality with millions of homeless
- questioning capitalism bifurcating into leaning either towards fascism or socialism
- magical, tribal belief cults like flat-earth, anti-vaxx and conspiracy theorists
- highest incarceration rate on Earth (per capita) except Seychelles
- clueless leadership/elite class who cling ever more to utopian nonsense like libertarianism, meritocracy, consumerism, and technological progress/fashion
- national debt leading to insolvency
Decay is slow and gradual to people who live here all of the time. If you're like Chris Hedges and live abroad for some years and come back, the decline is noticeable over a longer timescale. (Slowly boiled frog.) And then there are folks like Chalmers Johnson who predicted empire and democracy are mutually exclusive, and you can see the current US military budget, undeclared wars and hundreds of bases around the world. Some examples of decline include:
- massive corruption of the political establishment
- crackdowns on publishers and journalists who don't tow the establishment line
- apathy of the middle (low voter turn-out)
- electing demagogues
- crumbling infrastructure: roads, bridges
- rust belt / lack of manufacturing
- declining birth rates
- rising xenophobia, provincialism and nationalism
- increase in volatility and political polarization of average people
- grotesque inequality with millions of homeless
- questioning capitalism bifurcating into leaning either towards fascism or socialism
- magical, tribal belief cults like flat-earth, anti-vaxx and conspiracy theorists
- highest incarceration rate on Earth (per capita) except Seychelles
- clueless leadership/elite class who cling ever more to utopian nonsense like libertarianism, meritocracy, consumerism, and technological progress/fashion
- national debt leading to insolvency
Voter turnout’s low because we live in an oligarchy where only special interests are represented, votes don’t matter (even when they’re not suppressed), and the will of the people isn’t heard in our chambers and halls of governance.
That’s why 65 million people vote for Clinton and we end up with Trump despite 3 million less votes.
It’s why pluralities of Americans support things like assault weapons bans but Mitch McConnell won’t even bring bills to the floor.
It’s why we get extreme gerrymandering in states like N. Carolina, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
The country is being hollowed out from within, the middle class is in steady decline, and our once great institutions are being privatized and sold off to the highest bidder.
It’s Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys wet dream and it’s only possible when the people aren’t represented and it’s going to have terrible repercussions in the United States just like it did in every other place that forced it upon its citizens.
We need to get rid of undemocratic institutions like the electoral college and Senate, expand the number of reps in the House of Representatives, drastically reduce the amount of money in politics, root out corruption, and make voting easier to access.
Unfortunately the Republican party wants none of those to pass in a system they can only continue to game further to win.
It’s a pretty depressing reality.
That’s why 65 million people vote for Clinton and we end up with Trump despite 3 million less votes.
It’s why pluralities of Americans support things like assault weapons bans but Mitch McConnell won’t even bring bills to the floor.
It’s why we get extreme gerrymandering in states like N. Carolina, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
The country is being hollowed out from within, the middle class is in steady decline, and our once great institutions are being privatized and sold off to the highest bidder.
It’s Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys wet dream and it’s only possible when the people aren’t represented and it’s going to have terrible repercussions in the United States just like it did in every other place that forced it upon its citizens.
We need to get rid of undemocratic institutions like the electoral college and Senate, expand the number of reps in the House of Representatives, drastically reduce the amount of money in politics, root out corruption, and make voting easier to access.
Unfortunately the Republican party wants none of those to pass in a system they can only continue to game further to win.
It’s a pretty depressing reality.
[deleted]
I’m moving back to SF on Nov 1 for work. It’s bemusing to watch the fire, electrical and BART outages this week. I’ve had CA related travel stays cancelled twice for PG&E outages.
Looking for a place to stay/live, too.. if anyone here can help. Will be on Embarcadero, but I like the east bay, and beyond.
Looking for a place to stay/live, too.. if anyone here can help. Will be on Embarcadero, but I like the east bay, and beyond.
I'm sorry.
I'm in So Cal, myself, but I'm really trying to escape. Have been starting to seriously investigate options outside of CA. It's just becoming so oppressively broken here.
I'm in So Cal, myself, but I'm really trying to escape. Have been starting to seriously investigate options outside of CA. It's just becoming so oppressively broken here.
Check out AC Transit Transbay Bus routes and live near one of those in Alameda/Oakland/Berkeley.
Here in north oakland I have a 45 minute commute with a seat every day on the bus.
Here in north oakland I have a 45 minute commute with a seat every day on the bus.
Yes. Back in the day, I commuted to SOMA from Lafayette -- had that worked out quite nicely.
I'll be starting from Oakland, found a spot to land that will give me a little time to work through market availabilities to find the right place.
But what you suggest is more or less what I'm aiming for, with Lafayette/WC as a possible extension if I can keep the home-to-BART commute easy.
I do like to get up at 430am and BART early, which opens things up a bit.
I'll be starting from Oakland, found a spot to land that will give me a little time to work through market availabilities to find the right place.
But what you suggest is more or less what I'm aiming for, with Lafayette/WC as a possible extension if I can keep the home-to-BART commute easy.
I do like to get up at 430am and BART early, which opens things up a bit.
I’m born and raised in California and have always lived here so I say this very much as a Californian, but that is such a California thing to say power outages make us like a third world country. (I’m laughing, not scolding.)
California has grown quite a bit in the past few decades. Some of these problems didn't exist in decades past. Also, California gets less precipitation than prior decades. Those aren't failures of the people of California. It wasn't like they chose to change the amount of rainfall that would occur.
The last few years have actually been uncharacteristically wet by historical standards.
That's actually why this fire season is so bad.
The problem isn't that too many people moved to California, the problem is that California has been aggressively blocking anything that might be construed as development, meaning that conditions just keep worsening everywhere.
That's actually why this fire season is so bad.
The problem isn't that too many people moved to California, the problem is that California has been aggressively blocking anything that might be construed as development, meaning that conditions just keep worsening everywhere.
Oh please. That's so ignorant. It's been raining fine, it's horrid people that are new.
"The period between late 2011 and 2014 was the driest in California history since record-keeping began"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_in_California
The fire isn't because of lack of rain. Nothing has changed, but time and people. People are causing this, not nature.
PG&E was forced to spend an extra $1.5B to $4.5B per year on green energy, which almost doubled the electric rates in CA.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/pges_bankruptcy...
Perhaps the money would have been better directed at upgrading transmission lines, etc.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/pges_bankruptcy...
Perhaps the money would have been better directed at upgrading transmission lines, etc.
Are they under pressure from regulators or courts to never start another fire again or something?
From my cursory understanding, they are not under direct pressure but recent legal fines have implicitly made the risks of remaining operational sky-high. What did the litigators think would happen?
> What did the litigators think would happen?
That PG&E would stop paying out dividends instead of doing the maintenance they are supposed to be doing?
https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-stock-...
That PG&E would stop paying out dividends instead of doing the maintenance they are supposed to be doing?
https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-stock-...
Then how about prohibiting dividends, buybacks, and bonuses until they are ready to accept liability -- or some other way of structuring this regulation other than imposing contradictory requirements on them that force blackouts?
Utilities are heavily regulated. Each year, budget has to be approved by Sacramento.
Not fines so much, but payments to insurance companies and others who suffered loses in fires found to be started by PG&E power lines.
That the age old failure of leadership could be blamed on the greed of the corporation. They are all complicit, ain't nothin' new.
My guess is the ultimate end game is to get the state to pass a law shielding them from liability if they do start another. "Shield us from liability and we will stop the blackouts."
The state should (i.e. probably will not) counter by throwing a few of their execs in jail for their role in starting fires due to failure to maintain their stuff aka gross negligence.
But the houses were built next to this tinderbox. They were going to burn eventually.
That. Is that really case? I mean honestly. I really suspect that a large part of the problem is the desire for people to have a house in the woods but I'm unclear as to how you could quantify that suspicion. Or who has.
The fact that they burned is proof. As t -> infinity, the probability of a wildfire approaches 1, even without electricity.
A lot of people don't know about when they wanted to double rates a few years ago and were getting a huge backlash, they just starting turning off the power in "rolling blackouts" just because they were mad. After about a week all the anti rate increase talk stopped and the rates doubled and everyone just forgot about it. They are horrid people.
This is the end game^
This of course can't end poorly as the second such a bill is passed, all incentive to maintain equipment goes out the window.
This of course can't end poorly as the second such a bill is passed, all incentive to maintain equipment goes out the window.
Yep. That's what they do.
This is the case that established unlimited liability for PG&E regardless of any determination of negligence on its part or staff.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1223894.html
CA legislators could pass a law changing this.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1223894.html
CA legislators could pass a law changing this.
Yes, bankruptcy court. If they are liable for another fire before they get out of bankruptcy, then the victims of the new fire will be paid before existing victims, creditors, and shareholders.
https://twitter.com/jared_ellias/status/1187523144505937921
Yeah that’s what happens when you’re held liable for damages caused by a fire.
That's easier said than done when you talking about the biggest economic state and most populous are in the country going dark.
The costs could wayyy higher than any forest fire.
The costs could wayyy higher than any forest fire.
That's what happens when you don't maintain your equipment or the land around it and cause fires as a result- you get held responsible for it.
You say "potato," he says, "spud."
No, it's just cheaper to cut power (doubly so when you ask the state to pay for it and just pocket it) than it is to actually do the work of maintaining the safe gaps between power lines and trees.
Yes, I know. I may get a power shutoff.
It's not for all of California. In Silicon Valley, it's mostly west of I-280, although my own area, about 2 miles east of I-280 in San Mateo County, is on warning status.
It's not for all of California. In Silicon Valley, it's mostly west of I-280, although my own area, about 2 miles east of I-280 in San Mateo County, is on warning status.
Unless I'm reading it wrong it looks like the "Power shutoff potential" is elevated or higher for all of their CA territory
You're reading it wrong. Most of the denser urban areas are excluded, including SF and most of urbanized Silicon Valley; the reporter tweeting this sensationalized it.
Here's the actual map:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=64ec74b4d4...
Here's the actual map:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=64ec74b4d4...
that map is a lot more damning from a visual perspective, even if it doesnt capture that many people
Right near 92 and 101 here - pretty urban - and we're on "possibly in the next 24-36 hours"
Ha! They are blocking users outside of the USA:
Block ID: GEO02 Block reason: Access from your Country was disabled by the administrator.
Block ID: GEO02 Block reason: Access from your Country was disabled by the administrator.
Side note: I found it interesting to see the discussion from people who have solar panels and learned that without a whole house battery the panels are practically useless when the power is out.
I thought it was just worth noting as a time people think they have one thing, and discover it’s something else entirely.
I thought it was just worth noting as a time people think they have one thing, and discover it’s something else entirely.
That's surprising to me. The need for capacitance is common sense to anyone with an understanding of electricity, which I would have assumed to include people who install solar panels on their homes.
Has deployments gotten broad enough that not just (curious) early adopters install them, now?
Has deployments gotten broad enough that not just (curious) early adopters install them, now?
Capacitance is not the word you’re looking for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance
You mean electrical storage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance
You mean electrical storage.
Capacitance is definitely the word I'm looking for. I'm thinking of the spikiness of current draw in electronics, as an extreme example, and the way we cope with that is precisely capacitors.
It most definitely has.
I can run many things off of solar without batteries. Calculators are commonly sold this way.
It makes perfect sense that this should work scaled up to a whole house. As long as the Sun is shining, there should be power.
It makes perfect sense that this should work scaled up to a whole house. As long as the Sun is shining, there should be power.
Capacitance, not batteries; your calculator includes capacitors, and has low enough draw that they can power it for at least a second or two.
That's the minimum requirement. Power draw varies on sub-second timescales; just because your power meter shows a continuous draw of 4 kW doesn't mean it's actually continuous, or that 4 (or 6, or 8) kW of solar panels would cover the spikes. When they don't, you get brownouts.
You wouldn't want your house to shut off because of a passing cloud, either.
Solar powered houses do not in fact need batteries -- a large capacitor bank would be plenty. It's just that a capacitor bank capable of running it for (say) five minutes, at a draw of several kilowatts, is enough power in a scary enough form factor to need armoring. Batteries are far safer, and also let you use power at night.
That's the minimum requirement. Power draw varies on sub-second timescales; just because your power meter shows a continuous draw of 4 kW doesn't mean it's actually continuous, or that 4 (or 6, or 8) kW of solar panels would cover the spikes. When they don't, you get brownouts.
You wouldn't want your house to shut off because of a passing cloud, either.
Solar powered houses do not in fact need batteries -- a large capacitor bank would be plenty. It's just that a capacitor bank capable of running it for (say) five minutes, at a draw of several kilowatts, is enough power in a scary enough form factor to need armoring. Batteries are far safer, and also let you use power at night.
It shouldn't be a problem.
All the things that matter come with switching power supplies. Switching power supplies can adjust. They normally handle everything from Japan at 90v to Nigeria commonly exceeding 250v. They also internally have capacitance.
For everything else, it just doesn't matter. I couldn't even tell if power for the toaster oven dropped to 70v for 200ms.
All the things that matter come with switching power supplies. Switching power supplies can adjust. They normally handle everything from Japan at 90v to Nigeria commonly exceeding 250v. They also internally have capacitance.
For everything else, it just doesn't matter. I couldn't even tell if power for the toaster oven dropped to 70v for 200ms.
Can we just get public utilities back? At least if a public utility is run poorly, we can attempt to fix it via legislation.
PG&E sucks, doesn't care, and probably the people responsible are still making bank.
PG&E sucks, doesn't care, and probably the people responsible are still making bank.
I don’t see how they (or anyone else that may operate PG&E) has any option here... PG&E operated under a risk model that allowed them to defer maintenance for years with no consequences for the fires they caused.
When that turned out to be wrong, they need to 1) stop causing fires and 2) complete the maintenance they should have been doing.
The problem is that #2 may take years to get caught up before they can begin operating normally again.
So where they are now: they operate a high risk service during certain whether conditions, and they’re responsible if anything goes wrong.
So what should they do given their current position? (As in right now.. no “should have”s that they can’t change.) shutting down occasionally seems pretty reasonable from their point of view.
When that turned out to be wrong, they need to 1) stop causing fires and 2) complete the maintenance they should have been doing.
The problem is that #2 may take years to get caught up before they can begin operating normally again.
So where they are now: they operate a high risk service during certain whether conditions, and they’re responsible if anything goes wrong.
So what should they do given their current position? (As in right now.. no “should have”s that they can’t change.) shutting down occasionally seems pretty reasonable from their point of view.
From PG&E's standpoint, what they should do is use the blackouts to extort as many concessions as possible from the state in terms of having the taxpayers pay for maintenance, and passing some kind of liability protection legislation so they're off the hook.
What the state should do is seek some kind of emergency court judgment that electric power is an essential service that PG&E is not allowed to cut off for mere financial liability reasons. Then get a court order that says PG&E has to turn it on, if they refuse, jail people until they find somebody willing to follow the court order.
Basically, if the state's doing their job, they'll tell PG&E they made their bed and now have to lie in it. Meaning they're forced to run, and if more disasters happen due to their reduced maintenance, they go bankrupt. The shareholders and bondholders are wiped out, and since it's an essential service, the state runs it using tax dollars until they can find new investors willing to take it on. In practice, this probably wouldn't happen until the state was done fixing the maintenance backlog on the taxpayers' dime.
Since homes were destroyed and lives lost as a result of their actions, the people who originally decided to skimp on maintenance might be criminally liable and end up in jail, IANAL though.
What the state should do is seek some kind of emergency court judgment that electric power is an essential service that PG&E is not allowed to cut off for mere financial liability reasons. Then get a court order that says PG&E has to turn it on, if they refuse, jail people until they find somebody willing to follow the court order.
Basically, if the state's doing their job, they'll tell PG&E they made their bed and now have to lie in it. Meaning they're forced to run, and if more disasters happen due to their reduced maintenance, they go bankrupt. The shareholders and bondholders are wiped out, and since it's an essential service, the state runs it using tax dollars until they can find new investors willing to take it on. In practice, this probably wouldn't happen until the state was done fixing the maintenance backlog on the taxpayers' dime.
Since homes were destroyed and lives lost as a result of their actions, the people who originally decided to skimp on maintenance might be criminally liable and end up in jail, IANAL though.
Except the fires are happening now. Telling PG&E now to keep power turned on in windy areas is increasing the risk.
The state would have a hard time being absolved of the _increased_ liability for such a thing.
In this case, while I completely understand the bigger picture, that would be the state telling them to make unsafe decisions.
The state would have a hard time being absolved of the _increased_ liability for such a thing.
In this case, while I completely understand the bigger picture, that would be the state telling them to make unsafe decisions.
How is a utility even allowed to "shut down" outside of some Act of God? If they can't run the utility to an acceptable SLA, it should be nationalised.
This does nothing to address the issue of how poor management is to blame for this situation in the first place. Yes, the blackouts are probably a reasonable response to the current situation, but what are they doing to make sure this never happens again? Basically where is the accountability?
If they need to do rolling blackouts to prevent fires that's fine. Are the people that designed the system so poorly being blamed for leading us to this situation or are they being handsomely rewarded?
If they need to do rolling blackouts to prevent fires that's fine. Are the people that designed the system so poorly being blamed for leading us to this situation or are they being handsomely rewarded?
Given that we regularly have moderately strong winds here and that during the last blackout the winds were very calm, I’m quite skeptical of claims of this being a “reasonable” behavior. As far as I can tell this is a game of chicken and they’re betting the state will flinch first.
PG&E is a public utilty under the commonly understood definition. And you can fix a privately owned public utility through regulation in essentially the same way since its heavily regularted by California Public Utilities Commission.
But the state-owned public utilities are just as incompetently run. For example, the state-owned water utilities are mentally disabling young kids all across the country.
There is a common problem whether state-run or just state-regulated. The government wants to keep rates low. So they refuse to perform proper maintenance and upgrades.
But the state-owned public utilities are just as incompetently run. For example, the state-owned water utilities are mentally disabling young kids all across the country.
There is a common problem whether state-run or just state-regulated. The government wants to keep rates low. So they refuse to perform proper maintenance and upgrades.
It might help if the CPUC didn't have appearances of corruption. I'd like to see the CPUC weighing in on PG&E heavily.
On KQED Forum one caller mentioned that bankruptcy allows clawbacks of payments (bonus, dividends) that are deemed improper.
Perhaps this is one way we can fund actually making PG&E state-owned.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/stor...
On KQED Forum one caller mentioned that bankruptcy allows clawbacks of payments (bonus, dividends) that are deemed improper.
Perhaps this is one way we can fund actually making PG&E state-owned.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/stor...
Look at the problems that Eskom has. I'm no expert in the field, but I don't think this would alleviate the problem much. It sounds like PG&E needs investment to dig cables underground and probably should've done so a while ago.
They would need permission from their regulator to raise rates to get the return on investing in those improvements. But voters/rate payers don't like rate hikes... so no underground cables.
Electric bills have always been such a small part of my utilities bills that I think a rate hike would be the right move.
Compared to? Water? Internet? Gas? What other major utilities are there. Unless you run purely on gas your electric bill will be your #1 cost utility.
Gas, water, garbage, etc., never mind internet.
That is true even today! We already have the option today to elect legislators that create laws that govern PG&E! In both scenarios, if we hire effective legislators we’ll get an effective outcome.
Public vs Private is a non-issue. Good legislators and government is the real issue.
Public vs Private is a non-issue. Good legislators and government is the real issue.
But for that you need good voters.
PG&E may be under mismanagement and that may be exasperating the situation, but what California is experiencing is only going to get worse and more widespread. It may improve for a few years, but it will become more and more the norm, no matter what PG&E do (or don't, apparently, do).
Fire due to power lines falling? California is not Nevada, that is certainly carbon consequences.
Fire due to power lines falling? California is not Nevada, that is certainly carbon consequences.
What exactly should they do differently? How should you run a power company in a tinderbox?
It might surprise you but a healthy utility doesn't spray the environment with sparks.
The main risk is high winds swinging the lines and trees far enough to contact, the resulting short can cause fires.
For this reason there's a standard for how far back trees should be trimmed for safety. Said standard was an excuse PG&E made for an additional funding request. When funded they didn't do the work, but instead paid a dividend.
So now we have richer stock holders and a utility that's decided to turn off the power instead of trim the trees.
The main risk is high winds swinging the lines and trees far enough to contact, the resulting short can cause fires.
For this reason there's a standard for how far back trees should be trimmed for safety. Said standard was an excuse PG&E made for an additional funding request. When funded they didn't do the work, but instead paid a dividend.
So now we have richer stock holders and a utility that's decided to turn off the power instead of trim the trees.
This has been beaten to death in other threads related to this over the past several weeks, but the short answer to your question is "by putting money toward infrastructure upgrades instead of toward paying out dividends".
$1B/year dividends plus stock buybacks - for example $200M/$400M/$800M/$800M in 2018/2017/2016/2015 https://ycharts.com/companies/PCG/stock_buyback
You are assuming that a publicly run utility would have the same cost structure as a private corporation - so the dividends that the private entity paid out would be available for further investment.
If anything, I would expect a publicly run utility to be less efficient at capital allocation. All "excess" capital may get used up in the inefficiencies instead of investments.
Consider the challenges of city-wide transportation networks in providing service, maintaining infrastructure and investing for the future.
If anything, I would expect a publicly run utility to be less efficient at capital allocation. All "excess" capital may get used up in the inefficiencies instead of investments.
Consider the challenges of city-wide transportation networks in providing service, maintaining infrastructure and investing for the future.
Why do you expect a private monopoly to allocate capital more efficiently than a publicly run utility?
A private company sends excess capital to shareholders. A public utility is likely to send "excess" capital into politically driven projects.
Alternatively, neither private nor publicly run capital is good at discounting the far future.
Alternatively, neither private nor publicly run capital is good at discounting the far future.
That excess capital being sent to shareholders clearly isn't being reinvested into stopping fires and maintenance. Because then, you know, cutting power might not be necessary?
It's amazing we're debating the pros/cons of public vs private utilities while we have an example of an incredibly corrupt private utility that needs to be shutdown and with execs thrown in jail for gross negligence.
It's amazing we're debating the pros/cons of public vs private utilities while we have an example of an incredibly corrupt private utility that needs to be shutdown and with execs thrown in jail for gross negligence.
Private monopolies like PG&E, which face little to no competition, are not typically known for their efficiency. Such an important public service which naturally tends towards monopoly should either be publicly owned, or it should be subject to extensive regulatory control.
>A private company sends excess capital to shareholders. A public utility is likely to send "excess" capital into politically driven projects.
Sending the capital to maintenance would be a politically driven project right now for public utility. For private company even right now it is still a conflict of interests between maintenance and shareholder interests.
Sending the capital to maintenance would be a politically driven project right now for public utility. For private company even right now it is still a conflict of interests between maintenance and shareholder interests.
I'm not saying that a private utility is the best answer. I'm saying that a publicly run utility may not be any better.
Consider the following regarding NY, DC & SF subway systems:
"How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways Disruptions and delays have roiled the system this year. But the crisis was long in the making, fueled by a litany of errors, a Times investigation shows." 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
"Metro sank into crisis despite decades of warnings Metro’s failure-prone subway — once considered a transportation jewel — is mired in disrepair because the transit agency neglected to heed warnings that its aging equipment and poor safety culture would someday lead to chronic breakdowns and calamities." 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/met...
"Past decisions haunt BART as it seeks voter OK for $3.5 billion bond" https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Why-BART-s-futur...
Consider the following regarding NY, DC & SF subway systems:
"How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways Disruptions and delays have roiled the system this year. But the crisis was long in the making, fueled by a litany of errors, a Times investigation shows." 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
"Metro sank into crisis despite decades of warnings Metro’s failure-prone subway — once considered a transportation jewel — is mired in disrepair because the transit agency neglected to heed warnings that its aging equipment and poor safety culture would someday lead to chronic breakdowns and calamities." 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/met...
"Past decisions haunt BART as it seeks voter OK for $3.5 billion bond" https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Why-BART-s-futur...
I'm kind of astounded that you're framing the question in this manner, honestly. Perhaps you're simply unaware of the situation at hand.
>Six of the 10 most destructive fires in California history were started by electrical equipment. PG&E’s equipment has sparked 19 major fires in 2017 and 2018. The utility was blamed for last year’s Camp Fire that destroyed the town of Paradise and killed 86 people. SoCal Edison is under mounting scrutiny over potential links to the start of the Saddleridge fire in Sylmar. Edison’s power lines also started the 2017 Thomas fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties that killed two people.
Maybe they can start by replacing old, faulty equipment that is causing literally millions in damage and fatalities?
>Six of the 10 most destructive fires in California history were started by electrical equipment. PG&E’s equipment has sparked 19 major fires in 2017 and 2018. The utility was blamed for last year’s Camp Fire that destroyed the town of Paradise and killed 86 people. SoCal Edison is under mounting scrutiny over potential links to the start of the Saddleridge fire in Sylmar. Edison’s power lines also started the 2017 Thomas fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties that killed two people.
Maybe they can start by replacing old, faulty equipment that is causing literally millions in damage and fatalities?
just FYI the tower that started this fire was recently inspected and repaired. this it's not as simple as more maintenance when we have piss poor fire prevention
It's billions. Not millions.
[deleted]
> What exactly should they do differently?
They should not have spent the decade before the fires of the last three years paying generous dividends while deferring fire safety maintenance, as they were excoriated for this April by the judge overseeing their felony criminal sentence for the San Bruno gas explosion (who had the matter before him because the PG&E actions leading to the 2017 and 2018 fires were charged as, and ruled to be, violations of their probation for that criminal conviction.)
Or, maybe, repeatedly committing deadly crimes in the operation of public utility should mean you are no longer entrusted to operate that utility, and the instrumentalities of the crime should be forfeited to the government the same way they would be from any individual criminal, with someone else (public or private) less prone to deadly criminality given the job.
They should not have spent the decade before the fires of the last three years paying generous dividends while deferring fire safety maintenance, as they were excoriated for this April by the judge overseeing their felony criminal sentence for the San Bruno gas explosion (who had the matter before him because the PG&E actions leading to the 2017 and 2018 fires were charged as, and ruled to be, violations of their probation for that criminal conviction.)
Or, maybe, repeatedly committing deadly crimes in the operation of public utility should mean you are no longer entrusted to operate that utility, and the instrumentalities of the crime should be forfeited to the government the same way they would be from any individual criminal, with someone else (public or private) less prone to deadly criminality given the job.
> At least if a public utility is run poorly, we can attempt to fix it via legislation.
Because that's worked so well for our publicly owned security services (police)?
We definitely need to shake things up but bringing something under the umbrella of government doesn't magically make it not suck.
Because that's worked so well for our publicly owned security services (police)?
We definitely need to shake things up but bringing something under the umbrella of government doesn't magically make it not suck.
Explanation from PG&E: https://www.pgecurrents.com/2019/10/25/forecasts-indicate-po...
Text at 10/25/2019 8:31 AM
Most likely, they will shut off the power sometime between now (9 pm) and 3 am. It seems they do it while people are asleep to minimize numbers of angry customers calling in.
PS: I have the generator out, fueled and cords laid down ready to continue runnig the refrigerator and Netflixing while Xfinity lasts the first 18-24 hours until they shutoff internet/phone (VOIP)/TV. We're lucky as we still have Dish that we are about to get rid of and rebundle with Xfinity.
PG&E Safety Alert: Due to weather forecast, PG&E may turn off power in a portion of our service area. More info: pge.com/pspsupdates. Text UNENROLL to unsubscribe.
PG&E Safety Alert: Due to weather forecast, PG&E may turn off power in a portion of our service area. More info: pge.com/pspsupdates. Text UNENROLL to unsubscribe.
Most likely, they will shut off the power sometime between now (9 pm) and 3 am. It seems they do it while people are asleep to minimize numbers of angry customers calling in.
PS: I have the generator out, fueled and cords laid down ready to continue runnig the refrigerator and Netflixing while Xfinity lasts the first 18-24 hours until they shutoff internet/phone (VOIP)/TV. We're lucky as we still have Dish that we are about to get rid of and rebundle with Xfinity.
Won't be surprised to see sales of batteries (PowerWall, etc) and solar to tick up due to this.
We recently had a power outage at the 10 story building we are in. No idea how long it was in the works, but a week later they installed a giant array of Tesla of Tesla Powerpacks.
was that an array[array[Tesla Powerpack]] or array[Tesla[Tesla[Powerpacks]]]
10^4 Powerpacks!
How long will a PowerWall power a house? Is it hours or days?
> Block reason: Access from your Country was disabled by the administrator.
Canada is blocked?
Canada is blocked?
Czech Republic, too.
Hopefully this leads to the state getting good deal in the inevitable public takeover.
Honestly, I hope this leads to the state having cause to take it over with no cost. Stakeholders need to bear the burden of the organizations abysmal record.
I'm not blaming all of these fires on PGE. The state is simply not resilient to fire -- the smallest fires quickly become infernos.
They deserve some blame, of course. Clearly arson is wrong, and so is negligence. But how negligent are they really being? It seems like the latest fire was caused by a tower that was regularly inspected.
They deserve some blame, of course. Clearly arson is wrong, and so is negligence. But how negligent are they really being? It seems like the latest fire was caused by a tower that was regularly inspected.
But how negligent are they really being?
PG&E has a history of astounding incompetence and negligence, so probably very. PG&E blew up a San Bruno neighborhood because they were so lax about record keeping. I just heard something blow up about half an hour ago (sounded like a transformer). I still have power, but the last time this happened (a month or so ago) PG&E cut power for nearly 20 hours before even bothering to send anyone to investigate (overall I was without power for 22 hours).
It seems like the latest fire was caused by a tower that was regularly inspected.
The easy answer is that this infrastructure should be underground so that it can't cause these sorts of fires in the first place.
From reddit:
From OP's article: "The utility says the transmission level outage on the power line relayed and did not reclose."
Which means:
From OP's article: "The utility says the transmission level outage on the power line relayed and did not reclose."
Unless I'm mistake, the "re-closing" refers to a line that becomes de-energized somehow- the circuit is broken, or "opened". Sometimes this is because a physical cable broke from wind or a tree branch, sometimes it's a technical malfunction; so PG&E sends some juice through the (potentially physically broken) line to see if the current returns, and attempts to restart the line.
Basically, the re-closing sends live current through a line that may be physically compromised, in order to see if it's not compromised and can be turned back on simply. So, in this case, it seems likely that a) wind broke one of PG&E's major transmission lines, causing it to fall onto the tinder-like brush below the tower, and then PG&E sent juice through that broken line, at least once (in the past the re-closers would make three attempts.)
PG&E apparently let one of their cables fall on dry brush, and then sent sparks through it, possibly multiple times, starting the fire.
This poster goes on to point out that Southern California utility companies typically disable this behavior during fire season and other posters pointed out that typically older reclosing mechanisms were just dumb relays that you couldn't easily disable while newer infrastructure will be using SCADA devices that you could easily disable.
PG&E has a history of astounding incompetence and negligence, so probably very. PG&E blew up a San Bruno neighborhood because they were so lax about record keeping. I just heard something blow up about half an hour ago (sounded like a transformer). I still have power, but the last time this happened (a month or so ago) PG&E cut power for nearly 20 hours before even bothering to send anyone to investigate (overall I was without power for 22 hours).
It seems like the latest fire was caused by a tower that was regularly inspected.
The easy answer is that this infrastructure should be underground so that it can't cause these sorts of fires in the first place.
From reddit:
From OP's article: "The utility says the transmission level outage on the power line relayed and did not reclose."
Which means:
From OP's article: "The utility says the transmission level outage on the power line relayed and did not reclose."
Unless I'm mistake, the "re-closing" refers to a line that becomes de-energized somehow- the circuit is broken, or "opened". Sometimes this is because a physical cable broke from wind or a tree branch, sometimes it's a technical malfunction; so PG&E sends some juice through the (potentially physically broken) line to see if the current returns, and attempts to restart the line.
Basically, the re-closing sends live current through a line that may be physically compromised, in order to see if it's not compromised and can be turned back on simply. So, in this case, it seems likely that a) wind broke one of PG&E's major transmission lines, causing it to fall onto the tinder-like brush below the tower, and then PG&E sent juice through that broken line, at least once (in the past the re-closers would make three attempts.)
PG&E apparently let one of their cables fall on dry brush, and then sent sparks through it, possibly multiple times, starting the fire.
This poster goes on to point out that Southern California utility companies typically disable this behavior during fire season and other posters pointed out that typically older reclosing mechanisms were just dumb relays that you couldn't easily disable while newer infrastructure will be using SCADA devices that you could easily disable.
>The easy answer is that this infrastructure should be underground so that it can't cause these sorts of fires in the first place.
Is it feasible to put the very high voltage lines underground? I know it is done for residential areas.
Is it feasible to put the very high voltage lines underground? I know it is done for residential areas.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-cited-for-... ...
> The most recent audit of PG&E’s work in Sonoma County, conducted in 2015, found 3,527 maintenance and repair jobs that had been finished past their scheduled due dates. A 2013 audit of PG&E’s North Bay division, which includes Marin and Napa counties, counted 9,520 repair or maintenance orders finished late and 3,270 still overdue.
> The commission ... counted more than 1,000 late repair or maintenance jobs in six of PG&E’s nine Bay Area districts.
> No other California utility, or utility division, was found to have more than 1,000 late corrective actions in audits the commission performed from 2013 through this year. Only the Sacramento Municipal Utility District came close, with 993 late repair or maintenance jobs cited in an audit this year.
> The 2015 audit of PG&E’s Sonoma operations, for example, included spot-check inspections of PG&E equipment in Cazadero, Guerneville, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sonoma and Windsor. Problems found include one instance of vegetation growing too close to a power line, one of vegetation obstructing the climbing space on a pole and several instances of improperly installed guy wires, which help hold a pole in place.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-... ...
> Pacific Gas and Electric Co. diverted more than $100 million in gas safety and operations money collected from customers over a 15-year period and spent it for other purposes, including profit for stockholders and bonuses for executives, according to a pair of state-ordered reports released Thursday.
> The documents link a deficient PG&E safety culture - with its "focus on financial performance" - to the pipeline explosion in San Bruno on Sept. 9, 2010, that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.
> The "low priority" the company gave to pipeline safety during the three years leading up to the San Bruno blast was "well outside industry practice - even during times of corporate austerity programs," said the audit by Overland Consulting of Leawood, Kan.
> "A cursory review reveals that a significant portion, in the millions, has been awarded to the CEO," the commission staff report said in a reference to former PG&E head Peter Darbee, who retired last year.
https://www.salon.com/2019/10/09/after-choosing-profits-over... ....
> [PG&E] chose to diverting money from power line under-grounding projects — among other infrastructure initiatives — to “other high priority system improvements” like boosting corporate profits and paying executives even more. Despite their recent bankruptcy filing, the company's chief executive officer Bill Johnson received an annual base salary of $2.5 million for a three-year contract — double the salary of the previous CEO.
> Thanks to a subsequent California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) investigation, the public learned that between 1987 and 1994 PG&E diverted $495 million from its budgets to maintain its systems to boost corporate profits.
> Decades later, another an investigation by the California Public Utilities Commission found that PG&E diverted more than $100 million in gas safety and operations collected from customers over a 15-year period to spend on bonuses for executives, among other profit-makers for key stakeholders.
---
Given the decades-long pattern that's documented here, we not only can hold PG&E 100% responsible, we should. Defending them for attempting to operate in WUI areas holds no water when they consistently chose to cash out funds that were supposed to be used for equipment maintenance.
PG&E's practices are indefensible, they are wholly responsible for the deaths and property damage they have caused, their "just turn it all off" solution is absurd, and they should cease to exist if only to give future executives a reason to have a moment's introspection in between sips of top-shelf liquor.
> The most recent audit of PG&E’s work in Sonoma County, conducted in 2015, found 3,527 maintenance and repair jobs that had been finished past their scheduled due dates. A 2013 audit of PG&E’s North Bay division, which includes Marin and Napa counties, counted 9,520 repair or maintenance orders finished late and 3,270 still overdue.
> The commission ... counted more than 1,000 late repair or maintenance jobs in six of PG&E’s nine Bay Area districts.
> No other California utility, or utility division, was found to have more than 1,000 late corrective actions in audits the commission performed from 2013 through this year. Only the Sacramento Municipal Utility District came close, with 993 late repair or maintenance jobs cited in an audit this year.
> The 2015 audit of PG&E’s Sonoma operations, for example, included spot-check inspections of PG&E equipment in Cazadero, Guerneville, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sonoma and Windsor. Problems found include one instance of vegetation growing too close to a power line, one of vegetation obstructing the climbing space on a pole and several instances of improperly installed guy wires, which help hold a pole in place.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-... ...
> Pacific Gas and Electric Co. diverted more than $100 million in gas safety and operations money collected from customers over a 15-year period and spent it for other purposes, including profit for stockholders and bonuses for executives, according to a pair of state-ordered reports released Thursday.
> The documents link a deficient PG&E safety culture - with its "focus on financial performance" - to the pipeline explosion in San Bruno on Sept. 9, 2010, that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.
> The "low priority" the company gave to pipeline safety during the three years leading up to the San Bruno blast was "well outside industry practice - even during times of corporate austerity programs," said the audit by Overland Consulting of Leawood, Kan.
> "A cursory review reveals that a significant portion, in the millions, has been awarded to the CEO," the commission staff report said in a reference to former PG&E head Peter Darbee, who retired last year.
https://www.salon.com/2019/10/09/after-choosing-profits-over... ....
> [PG&E] chose to diverting money from power line under-grounding projects — among other infrastructure initiatives — to “other high priority system improvements” like boosting corporate profits and paying executives even more. Despite their recent bankruptcy filing, the company's chief executive officer Bill Johnson received an annual base salary of $2.5 million for a three-year contract — double the salary of the previous CEO.
> Thanks to a subsequent California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) investigation, the public learned that between 1987 and 1994 PG&E diverted $495 million from its budgets to maintain its systems to boost corporate profits.
> Decades later, another an investigation by the California Public Utilities Commission found that PG&E diverted more than $100 million in gas safety and operations collected from customers over a 15-year period to spend on bonuses for executives, among other profit-makers for key stakeholders.
---
Given the decades-long pattern that's documented here, we not only can hold PG&E 100% responsible, we should. Defending them for attempting to operate in WUI areas holds no water when they consistently chose to cash out funds that were supposed to be used for equipment maintenance.
PG&E's practices are indefensible, they are wholly responsible for the deaths and property damage they have caused, their "just turn it all off" solution is absurd, and they should cease to exist if only to give future executives a reason to have a moment's introspection in between sips of top-shelf liquor.
While I wish everyone in an office job at PG&E would lose their job, I don't think a public takeover is the right move.
Briefly take control, then sell it to a utility that knows how to run and maintain a large-scale power system.
I'd rather not imaging a power company the size of PG&E overseen by the same bureaucrats who oversee the DMV.
Briefly take control, then sell it to a utility that knows how to run and maintain a large-scale power system.
I'd rather not imaging a power company the size of PG&E overseen by the same bureaucrats who oversee the DMV.
My understanding is that they have already filed for Chapter 11. Also the stock has fallen from 50 to 5.
Meaning, the "old" PG&E is already dead. We can beat said dead horse over exec bonuses and tree trimming failures all we like, but its somewhat beside the point. How to go forward?
Specifically, in Chapter 11 right now they're surely aggressively trying to re-negotiate every financial thing they can touch. Another fire opening up another lawsuit right now would almost instantly torpedo any deals in the works.
Its a remarkably lose-lose situation.
Meaning, the "old" PG&E is already dead. We can beat said dead horse over exec bonuses and tree trimming failures all we like, but its somewhat beside the point. How to go forward?
Specifically, in Chapter 11 right now they're surely aggressively trying to re-negotiate every financial thing they can touch. Another fire opening up another lawsuit right now would almost instantly torpedo any deals in the works.
Its a remarkably lose-lose situation.
Again?
BTW, I'd like to see how much they've spent retrofitting their website to handle the load of the customers trying to find out the details of the outage as it relates to their neighbourhood, and how soon after the start of the cutoffs that their website will go down again.
Prior discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21212135
BTW, I'd like to see how much they've spent retrofitting their website to handle the load of the customers trying to find out the details of the outage as it relates to their neighbourhood, and how soon after the start of the cutoffs that their website will go down again.
Prior discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21212135
After moving to the west coast, I've learned that PG&E is suprisingly shitty (and absurdly expensive). I actually had a blackout for over three hours in SF. It actually forced me to do some blackout planning by buying some high efficiency portable solar panels just in case.
In my thirty-odd year experience, PG&E is more reliable in San Francisco than elsewhere in the Bay Area.
Important note: San Francisco seems to be getting a pass for the blackout.
SF is not at risk for grass fires and forest fires. It's a big city.
While true, PG&E is going to cut power to a lot of urban parts of the Bay Area later today.
Sounds like they're not really a utility anymore.
I’m not defending them... but what are the chances that the state mismanagement of forestry leading to an excess of fuel that WILL eventually burn, and their hefty fines for the previous fire have made the power company cautious to the point that delivering service is a dangerous business prospective?
Is a utility forced to make decisions that could put the entire company at risk? IDK. I’m asking.
Is a utility forced to make decisions that could put the entire company at risk? IDK. I’m asking.
Their decision should be based on delivering power and maintaining the system. It shouldn't be based on profit or any sort of business prospective.
Background on why california has so many fires:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/climate/why-california-fi...
Answer: Santa Ana Winds + above ground power lines + fire suppression. From the article:
It’s counterintuitive, but the United States’ history of suppressing wildfires has actually made present-day wildfires worse.
“For the last century we fought fire, and we did pretty well at it across all of the Western United States,” Dr. Williams said. “And every time we fought a fire successfully, that means that a bunch of stuff that would have burned didn’t burn. And so over the last hundred years we’ve had an accumulation of plants in a lot of areas.
“And so in a lot of California now when fires start, those fires are burning through places that have a lot more plants to burn than they would have if we had been allowing fires to burn for the last hundred years.”
In recent years, the United States Forest Service has been trying to rectify the previous practice through the use of prescribed or “controlled” burns.
Answer: Santa Ana Winds + above ground power lines + fire suppression. From the article:
It’s counterintuitive, but the United States’ history of suppressing wildfires has actually made present-day wildfires worse.
“For the last century we fought fire, and we did pretty well at it across all of the Western United States,” Dr. Williams said. “And every time we fought a fire successfully, that means that a bunch of stuff that would have burned didn’t burn. And so over the last hundred years we’ve had an accumulation of plants in a lot of areas.
“And so in a lot of California now when fires start, those fires are burning through places that have a lot more plants to burn than they would have if we had been allowing fires to burn for the last hundred years.”
In recent years, the United States Forest Service has been trying to rectify the previous practice through the use of prescribed or “controlled” burns.
The distinction that may be lost on many people is that plants that were very common in these areas were plants that could tolerate low to moderate intensity fire. In some cases the plants are so adapted to fire that they only reproduce after a fire. No fire, no new plants. Plants that aren't fire resistant get substantial selective pressure against them after every fire, while the fire 'loving' plants have reduced competition.
But if you block the fires for a long time, you get not just more fuel building up, but more flammable plants building up. The whole process created hotter fires, that can damage or kill even the resistant plants. There is no phoenix to rise from those ashes.
Prescribed burns are done, in theory, when the fuel+heat+oxygen equation is barely favorable enough to sustain a burn. This clears the fuel and maladapted plants and leaving the rest more or less intact. But a sudden wind or a nearly certain rainstorm that doesn't happen and you have a lot of explaining to do to the public.
But if you block the fires for a long time, you get not just more fuel building up, but more flammable plants building up. The whole process created hotter fires, that can damage or kill even the resistant plants. There is no phoenix to rise from those ashes.
Prescribed burns are done, in theory, when the fuel+heat+oxygen equation is barely favorable enough to sustain a burn. This clears the fuel and maladapted plants and leaving the rest more or less intact. But a sudden wind or a nearly certain rainstorm that doesn't happen and you have a lot of explaining to do to the public.
One point here where I readily criticize the state is that they have a very, very narrow window during which prescribed burns are allowed to happen due to air quality management rules. Those need to be relaxed and fixed like yesterday; certainly the air quality impacts of out-of-control wildfires is far worse than the air quality impacts of prescribed burns. (https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article23048168...)
But people have moved into the forest and they can't do prescribed burns there, so fuel will continue to build up near where people live. People in such areas should be forced to build houses that can survive regular fires (something eminently possible) or disclaim all right for compensation over fires set intentionally, negligently, or naturally.
In recent years, the United States Forest Service has been trying to rectify the previous practice through the use of prescribed or “controlled” burns.
I read an article last year about this, I think also in the Times, and it pointed out that this was mostly a California thing; other states continued with proscribed burns, while California stopped for aesthetic reasons.
The article was spurred as a fact-check piece after the president tweeted that last year's fires were because of California's mismanagement of its forests, in spite of federal agencies trying to continue the controlled burns.
It came right around the time someone on HN posted a very cool interactive map that used satellite data to show all of the fires burning across the country, and sure enough — when you hovered over the fires in other states the pop-up text indicated they were controlled burns, but the California fires were all enormous out-of-control conflagrations.
I read an article last year about this, I think also in the Times, and it pointed out that this was mostly a California thing; other states continued with proscribed burns, while California stopped for aesthetic reasons.
The article was spurred as a fact-check piece after the president tweeted that last year's fires were because of California's mismanagement of its forests, in spite of federal agencies trying to continue the controlled burns.
It came right around the time someone on HN posted a very cool interactive map that used satellite data to show all of the fires burning across the country, and sure enough — when you hovered over the fires in other states the pop-up text indicated they were controlled burns, but the California fires were all enormous out-of-control conflagrations.
60% of land in CA is under Federal management.
Another 2/3 is private land.
There is more bureaucracy around things like air quality regulations, but in general it's not an "aesthetic" issue causing these problems.
Many of the issues are around "interface" fires where cities butt up against forested areas. Doing a controlled burn of some remote wilderness is fine, but doesn't accomplish much as far as human safety. This is exacerbated by things like the massive drought CA suffered, and other climate change related problems. For example, millions of CA tress which would otherwise be green and healthy have died or are afflicted by disease as a result of climate change, which makes them into tinder that fuels these "conflagrations".
If you do a controlled burn nearby a heavily-populated area, you always run the risk of things going out of control and having unintended consequences. The issue as far as PG&E goes is that their POWER LINES and other equipment have not been properly maintained, which is 100% their responsibility.
They are obligated to clear areas around their lines and make sure everything is operating safely. The Paradise fire wasn't caused by State mismanagement, it was caused by sparking PG&E lines and transformers catching immediately adjacent growth on fire. That's not a State of even a Federal management issue or responsibility.
They are a for-profit corporation though, so other than fines and penalties for their negligence, they have no incentive to do better. They pay out massive salaries, bonuses, and dividends (bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/04/16/new-pge-ceo-salary-double-geisha-williams.html), yet their solution to "safety" here is to just shut everything off and act like it's a problem caused by others.
There are many interrelated aspects at play, but insinuating that the State is somehow just a bunch of misguided hippies not following common sense is just silly.
Another 2/3 is private land.
There is more bureaucracy around things like air quality regulations, but in general it's not an "aesthetic" issue causing these problems.
Many of the issues are around "interface" fires where cities butt up against forested areas. Doing a controlled burn of some remote wilderness is fine, but doesn't accomplish much as far as human safety. This is exacerbated by things like the massive drought CA suffered, and other climate change related problems. For example, millions of CA tress which would otherwise be green and healthy have died or are afflicted by disease as a result of climate change, which makes them into tinder that fuels these "conflagrations".
If you do a controlled burn nearby a heavily-populated area, you always run the risk of things going out of control and having unintended consequences. The issue as far as PG&E goes is that their POWER LINES and other equipment have not been properly maintained, which is 100% their responsibility.
They are obligated to clear areas around their lines and make sure everything is operating safely. The Paradise fire wasn't caused by State mismanagement, it was caused by sparking PG&E lines and transformers catching immediately adjacent growth on fire. That's not a State of even a Federal management issue or responsibility.
They are a for-profit corporation though, so other than fines and penalties for their negligence, they have no incentive to do better. They pay out massive salaries, bonuses, and dividends (bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/04/16/new-pge-ceo-salary-double-geisha-williams.html), yet their solution to "safety" here is to just shut everything off and act like it's a problem caused by others.
There are many interrelated aspects at play, but insinuating that the State is somehow just a bunch of misguided hippies not following common sense is just silly.
Title is hyperbole. If you look at the maps most of the major urban areas are excluded, notably all of SF and most of Silicon Valley:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=64ec74b4d4...
The announcement is for 850K customers, while if it were really for all of their CA territory it'd be tens of millions.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=64ec74b4d4...
The announcement is for 850K customers, while if it were really for all of their CA territory it'd be tens of millions.
This comment should get more upvote. Thanks for the more
accurate information.
Also, the page pointed you to this one https://psps.ss.pge.com/ to check if your address is in the impact zone or not. Seems like it works this time.
Also, the page pointed you to this one https://psps.ss.pge.com/ to check if your address is in the impact zone or not. Seems like it works this time.
[deleted]
Anyone know how much money they save by shutting off power for a large majority of their customers?
Being in the business of selling power, I would think they're losing money when the power is off. They've got power plants idling and nobody racking up kwh's. I guess the calculus is that the lost revenue is less than the liability of a fire.
I would assume they aren’t billing for kW/hr when kilowatts aren’t being used. So, they seem to be turning off their income as well as some costs. Their expenses however still exist in the form of infrastructure, employees, etc.
I find it more likely they themselves are under contract to create, buy, transfer, use, so many megawatts over so much time than the customer will have to pay for service that was turned off.
I find it more likely they themselves are under contract to create, buy, transfer, use, so many megawatts over so much time than the customer will have to pay for service that was turned off.
> So, they seem to be turning off their income as well as some costs. Their expenses however still exist in the form of infrastructure, employees, etc.
Yes, but they're weighing that loss of revenue against potentially having to pay out billions in damages if they cause another fire. It looks like the last fire is going to cost them over $18 billion, since that's what they're trying to cap it at last I saw. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-09/pge-looks-...
Yes, but they're weighing that loss of revenue against potentially having to pay out billions in damages if they cause another fire. It looks like the last fire is going to cost them over $18 billion, since that's what they're trying to cap it at last I saw. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-09/pge-looks-...
I don't think they save anything because they're not getting paid for electricity they do not provide.
I imagine that depends on if they can sell the unused power somewhere else.
Used to be the shining star of progress in the world, now this.