L.A. power utility found irregularities on equipment where wildfire broke out(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
L.A. power utility found irregularities on equipment where wildfire broke out
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/business/eaton-fire-power-lines-edison.html
25 comments
There's probably more accurate answers, but I'd say they don't because they don't want the responsibility internally and/or don't have the funding, and can't because they're too ineptly run to do anything properly.
Having spent a good part of my career consulting for state and local governments in IT, it's an easy generalization to say they're mostly all incompetently run, and not something most are equipped to support from the top down. Even when run well, they're not well funded, and if some of the people actually are good, they're probably too busy fighting and offsetting the incompetent ones to do any good.
The flip side is I've also worked for several power companies over the years, and they're not often much better. They're at times better run and better people, but so dragged back by bureaucracy and politics they can't get out of their own way to do any good if they wanted to.
Having spent a good part of my career consulting for state and local governments in IT, it's an easy generalization to say they're mostly all incompetently run, and not something most are equipped to support from the top down. Even when run well, they're not well funded, and if some of the people actually are good, they're probably too busy fighting and offsetting the incompetent ones to do any good.
The flip side is I've also worked for several power companies over the years, and they're not often much better. They're at times better run and better people, but so dragged back by bureaucracy and politics they can't get out of their own way to do any good if they wanted to.
Sure, I get that having a profit-motive is one way the market can incentivize efficiency. But without the ability for any real competition (i.e. there will only ever be one set of main transmission wires or water pipes for an area, we won’t ever have two completely distinct physical competitor networks serving the same identical addresses) does that still hold?
For a private company in sole ownership of a utility, how does the market keep the incentive to cost-cut (i.e. increase profit by reducing expenditures on things like timely customer service or deferring capex) in check versus actually improving service and efficiency above “it still works” ? It’s not like any individual could choose another provider of electricity, so therefore it’s not much of a market at all.
What is the motive to do anything other than rent-seek without a competitor to incentivize them to improve?
At least municipal and state leaders have some sort of accountability in that they could get voted out if it’s going wrong on their watch. Meanwhile PG&E was rewarding its shareholders by raising rates and deferring maintenance for paying out high dividends rather than re-investing in itself, which seems like exactly the opposite thing the public would want to incentivize.
For a private company in sole ownership of a utility, how does the market keep the incentive to cost-cut (i.e. increase profit by reducing expenditures on things like timely customer service or deferring capex) in check versus actually improving service and efficiency above “it still works” ? It’s not like any individual could choose another provider of electricity, so therefore it’s not much of a market at all.
What is the motive to do anything other than rent-seek without a competitor to incentivize them to improve?
At least municipal and state leaders have some sort of accountability in that they could get voted out if it’s going wrong on their watch. Meanwhile PG&E was rewarding its shareholders by raising rates and deferring maintenance for paying out high dividends rather than re-investing in itself, which seems like exactly the opposite thing the public would want to incentivize.
I live in one of the places with good power. Have lived in my present building for 20 years, only two power failures in that time, and of those happened because unknown persons really wanted to cut power to my neighbour. The price for this reliability is said to be up to about ten times of what the Americans pay. I appreciate the reliability personally, but I imagine that if you went to your customers saying "this part of your power bill is going to increase by 1000%" some of them might scream at you.
I've also done some contract work for a couple of power companies, and don't have the impression that they tried to maximise profit. Rather, they seemed to see themselves as safe, zero-risk, low-profit places. As someone who'd never make either large profits or losses. The teams I dealt with didn't seem like people who would face down screaming customers. Safe, low-risk, boring, staid, always profitable, never headline makers.
Assuming that the Californians are like the teams I dealt with, I would tend to explain their present state with a reluctance to offend the customers.
I've also done some contract work for a couple of power companies, and don't have the impression that they tried to maximise profit. Rather, they seemed to see themselves as safe, zero-risk, low-profit places. As someone who'd never make either large profits or losses. The teams I dealt with didn't seem like people who would face down screaming customers. Safe, low-risk, boring, staid, always profitable, never headline makers.
Assuming that the Californians are like the teams I dealt with, I would tend to explain their present state with a reluctance to offend the customers.
There was a large discussion about city-owned utilities yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42975492
Personally I thought this was the best comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42985484
Natural monopolies benefit from scale. For water you need treatment and then sewage. Unless you can pump ground water there and then, you facilities are cheaper per unit when they scale up at least to certain point.
So for same continuous geographical area having single water utility is lot of sense.
Same mostly goes for power.
With internet, the actual infra is so small and affordable that only the last bit to consumer is expensive per unit. So in sanely operated markets you can have multiple operators at same time and competition works.
So for same continuous geographical area having single water utility is lot of sense.
Same mostly goes for power.
With internet, the actual infra is so small and affordable that only the last bit to consumer is expensive per unit. So in sanely operated markets you can have multiple operators at same time and competition works.
Yup, I get the economies of scale, hence why I wonder why we don’t use statewide utilities for more rural areas and municipal utilities for denser metro areas that support it (e.g. LADWP for Los Angeles).
But even if you have a private company capitalize on these efficiencies of scale, there’s no competition to force them to do anything other than the bare minimum (“provide this utility, today, above some bare minimum acceptability standard that doesn’t cause the state to nationalize is” with barely an afterthought toward what maintenance capex looks down the line), and even then Edison and PG&E still can’t hop over the low bar they set for themselves.
But even if you have a private company capitalize on these efficiencies of scale, there’s no competition to force them to do anything other than the bare minimum (“provide this utility, today, above some bare minimum acceptability standard that doesn’t cause the state to nationalize is” with barely an afterthought toward what maintenance capex looks down the line), and even then Edison and PG&E still can’t hop over the low bar they set for themselves.
I think best balance is private company majority or wholly owned by local or higher government. Sadly such companies are easy sells to fund budget shortfalls for year or two. And failures are only seen when those elected are out.
I think a large part of it is ideological. A lot people are convinced that private companies are cheaper and more efficient than the government when it comes to just about anything and won't listen to any nuance.
It is simply part of the neoliberal ethos. It stems from a circular belief that the private sector (the much-vaunted “Market”) is by definition better than having things run publicly. Even if selling things into the private sector results in bad outcomes which everyone could see coming a mile off it’s not the fault of the Market, it’s the fault of not applying the Market deeply enough.
Seems misguided to blame a spark for the fire when the fire is 0.000001% spark and 99.999999% fuel.
Considering PG&E delaying and ignoring maintenance was 100% the cause of the 2018 Paradise fire that burned down an entire town of 30,000 people, it would be foolish to not investigate
It's politically convenient to blame PG&E for what happened in Paradise. But I would not say it's 100% on them; I've been to Paradise before the fire, and it was impressively beautiful being surrounded by all the trees and nature, like living in a forest. But even back then, I remember thinking it was a massive tinder box that could go up in flames. For reference, here is a picture of an average street in a relatively urban part of Paradise, before the fire [1]. The houses farther away from the main street had even more foliage. The area is mostly older retirees, who didn't have the energy/will to trim back the growing unburnt fuel on their (massive plots of) land. For argument's sake, it'd be like surrounding your house with barrels of gasoline, then putting the blame 100% at PG&E for starting the spark. In fairness part of the blame is on the property owners, or perhaps the local gov't for not taking fire safety measures to limit the spread or damage.
[1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/E83WWnYX2pDjXzxY8
[1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/E83WWnYX2pDjXzxY8
Second that...
I remember driving up the main highway into Paradise, CA and saying to myself "if there is a fire here...anyone on this highway is screwed". Fast forward less than 10 years and I was watching the news reports of people driving blind through the fire at nearly the exact spot.
The entire town was on a ridge with tons of fuel (pine trees)...elevations below that was nothing but dry grass.
Although the fire was caused by power lines...All it would have taken was cigarette butt.
I remember driving up the main highway into Paradise, CA and saying to myself "if there is a fire here...anyone on this highway is screwed". Fast forward less than 10 years and I was watching the news reports of people driving blind through the fire at nearly the exact spot.
The entire town was on a ridge with tons of fuel (pine trees)...elevations below that was nothing but dry grass.
Although the fire was caused by power lines...All it would have taken was cigarette butt.
This is a bit like saying the 2020 Beirut explosion was 100% caused by the carelessly dropped cigarette (or whatever started the initial burn; nobody knows).
Well yes, in the sense that someone somewhere did something that triggered the cascade of effects that produced the boom. But assigning "100% of the cause" to that individual just lets everyone else in the chain escape blame.
If it isn't PG&E this year, it will be something else next year. Or the year after that. Like the LNU complex, it could be simple lightning.
Which is not to say that PG&E doesn't bear some responsibility, but "100% of the cause" is too reductive.
Well yes, in the sense that someone somewhere did something that triggered the cascade of effects that produced the boom. But assigning "100% of the cause" to that individual just lets everyone else in the chain escape blame.
If it isn't PG&E this year, it will be something else next year. Or the year after that. Like the LNU complex, it could be simple lightning.
Which is not to say that PG&E doesn't bear some responsibility, but "100% of the cause" is too reductive.
Because PG&E was the cause. If a lightening strike caused the fire, then that would be the cause. If a stray arsonist poured gasoline over the field and lit it all on fire, then the arsonist would be the cause. If it was teens lighting fireworks, then they would be the cause.
But none of those things actually happened. PG&E’s equipment caught on fire because it couldn’t handle its normal electricity load anymore, because they delayed maintenance for years.
There is no sense talking about all the things that “could” be the cause in some hypothetical future where PG&E hadn’t caused the fire that actually happened first. Because that would require PG&E to prevent the fire that actually happened, which they did not.
But none of those things actually happened. PG&E’s equipment caught on fire because it couldn’t handle its normal electricity load anymore, because they delayed maintenance for years.
There is no sense talking about all the things that “could” be the cause in some hypothetical future where PG&E hadn’t caused the fire that actually happened first. Because that would require PG&E to prevent the fire that actually happened, which they did not.
You're ignoring the difference between a small brush fire and a massive wildfire that destroys towns. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other, and when it does, the reason isn't just that there was a spark.
The fuel, while not all native vegetation, is mostly evolved to burn. But it is "supposed to" burn every 100 years or so from lightning or other natural cause. Humans have quickened the pace at which CA coastal sage scrub catches on fire(like, 12-25 years or something).
I think the residents and city also bear some responsibility because the risk of fire in coastal southern CA is widely known. People just don't like to follow CalFire guidelines or pay the costs of protecting their property. But if there was poor design or lack of maintenance in the electrical grid that rises to the level of negligence then the utility should pay.
I think the residents and city also bear some responsibility because the risk of fire in coastal southern CA is widely known. People just don't like to follow CalFire guidelines or pay the costs of protecting their property. But if there was poor design or lack of maintenance in the electrical grid that rises to the level of negligence then the utility should pay.
When billions of dollars are on the line, the culpability for that spark is everything.
The culpability is on those who created the conditions for the fuel
Both can be true at the same time.
That said, utility companies have a duty to properly maintain infrastructure, and this is an easier problem to fix. There are a few companies working on this, such as Gridware (https://www.gridware.io).
That said, utility companies have a duty to properly maintain infrastructure, and this is an easier problem to fix. There are a few companies working on this, such as Gridware (https://www.gridware.io).
Fuel is everywhere and unavoidable though?
I would definitely blame an arsonist for starting a fire
This article is about the Eaton fire. Cliff Mass, a Professor of atmospheric science at the university of Washington, stated about a month ago that the Palisades fire was caused by a power transmission line (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2025/01/where-and-how-did-pal...).
It’ll be really infuriating if it turns out all the biggest California fires were caused by utility issues.
It’ll be really infuriating if it turns out all the biggest California fires were caused by utility issues.
It seems as absurd to me as if one single company were to own all of a city’s water pipe infrastructure. Maybe that’s actually common too, I just don’t understand why. If it’s simply because municipalities sold them off long ago for short-term windfalls, my next question is why we as a state allow that, in the same sense that we don’t allow selling state parks without major hullabaloo.
Granted, I’m covered by LADWP, the nation’s largest municipal water and power utility that even predates this form of the city’s government itself, and I’ve really only had outstanding service with them (I noticed a small leak with a water main forming a minor puddle on a side street and within an hour someone was out there fixing it), so I guess I am wondering what the case for privatized utilities even is.
Could someone who knows better than I please explain why the state or local municipalities don’t/can’t manage their grid?