• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

pge liable for camp fire?

byke said:
Not quite a "solution", but they already have a pretty decent bandaid in place to cover the majority of the problems we've had, which is dry conditions mixed with wind. They hire a company to identify high risk trees, then another company to remove them, then they shut down power when the wind hits certain speeds, then they do a bunch of line testing before turning them back on. They seem to be struggling with actually *doing* the things they've laid out.
Click to expand...

I can expand on this a bit. They use formulas to determine how close to the various power lines a tree can be. Then they either trim or remove the tree based on the species and danger. The next phase is to replace all of the poles in high danger areas with composite or metal poles. But like you said, these fires are kind of stopping them from getting this done.
 
Didn't know about the composite/metal poles. We've got a couple leaners out here that need to be replaced. If not for PGE's long history of horrific behavior, I'd feel bad for them, but now I pray for penny stocks.
 
byke said:
Didn't know about the composite/metal poles. We've got a couple leaners out here that need to be replaced. If not for PGE's long history of horrific behavior, I'd feel bad for them, but now I pray for penny stocks.
Click to expand...

I'm with you.
 
LakeMerrit said:
While I don't disagree with what everyone's said so far, how would this be better if it wasn't a private company? If it was purely public, there would surely be even less accountability. Shitty Bay Bridge bolts? Cracked transit center beams? Can you think of one time in the history of California that a public entity was held accountable?

Even if they were held liable as a public entity, then who's on the hook financially? Still the rate payers. The balance would however be on the tax paying public instead of PGE investors.

I think what it comes down to is having transmission lines running through a very windy tinderbox isn't great conceptually. The cost of undergrounding though would be astronomical (although redirecting the moonbeam express funds might be a good fucking start) What to do?
Click to expand...

The big difference is that because it's a private company, there are people who are profiting from making these shitty decisions and running their company in a shitty way.
 
295566 said:
The big difference is that because it's a private company, there are people who are profiting from making these shitty decisions and running their company in a shitty way.
Click to expand...

If it were non profit, or public- how would that be better? I've yet to hear any reason it would be better.

Also, losing 50% of their value in a week isn't exactly profiting from their shitty decisions. Eventually being held liable for some of the fires isn't profitable. It's how market forces encourage industry to not cut too many corners. I agree with holding them liable- it's how 'regulation' should actually work. Make a strong financial disincentive to doing shitty work.

If it were 'public' they would contract out the line maintenance, and shitty decisions would still be made. There's no disincentive for breaking the rules when there's no mechanism for accountability. Based on what I've seen of the utter and complete lack of accountability by public entities, I'd be very concerned if all the power infrastructure (and liabilities) were socialized.
 
Public is all about procedure, private is all about profit. The jobs can be the same, but slightly different motivations can fuel very different decisions.
 
LakeMerrit said:
If it were non profit, or public- how would that be better? I've yet to hear any reason it would be better.

Also, losing 50% of their value in a week isn't exactly profiting from their shitty decisions. Eventually being held liable for some of the fires isn't profitable. It's how market forces encourage industry to not cut too many corners. I agree with holding them liable- it's how 'regulation' should actually work. Make a strong financial disincentive to doing shitty work.

If it were 'public' they would contract out the line maintenance, and shitty decisions would still be made. There's no disincentive for breaking the rules when there's no mechanism for accountability. Based on what I've seen of the utter and complete lack of accountability by public entities, I'd be very concerned if all the power infrastructure (and liabilities) were socialized.
Click to expand...

They were hardly slapped on the wrist for the San Bruno explosion. They were told they could pass on the fines and/or rebuilding expense onto the consumer for the Santa Rosa fires. Meanwhile, they jack up rates for consumers and pocket the dividends.

In theory, you'd be right, if the losses were privatized as well. But in the above scenarios, many lost their property, homes, and even lives due to PG&E's negligence, and that was then passed back onto the consumers. Obviously their behavior did not change. So again, in theory they would have privatized losses AND privatized profits. However, they've managed to follow the insurance model... privatize profits and socialize losses. :thumbdown
 
295566 said:
They were hardly slapped on the wrist for the San Bruno explosion. They were told they could pass on the fines and/or rebuilding expense onto the consumer for the Santa Rosa fires. Meanwhile, they jack up rates for consumers and pocket the dividends.

In theory, you'd be right, if the losses were privatized as well. But in the above scenarios, many lost their property, homes, and even lives due to PG&E's negligence, and that was then passed back onto the consumers. Obviously their behavior did not change. So again, in theory they would have privatized losses AND privatized profits. However, they've managed to follow the insurance model... privatize profits and socialize losses. :thumbdown
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I would like to see many things privatized, for profit and for loss. I think the issue is "too big to fail." IE if we let the exposure bankrupt PG&E, we are all SOL because they have a monopoly on norcal transmission infrastructure. Since we can't have the lights go off, we shield them from anywhere near considering bankruptcy.

This is how they're able to successfully argue their way out of a ton of exposure.
 
I didn't know anything about PG&E but a "publicly owned" monopoly doesn't seem like a good idea. They went bankrupt once and passed that onto the consumers.

But what do I know.
 
SFSV650 said:
That's not huge money in today's construction economy.
Click to expand...

PG&E alone has 18,466 miles of transmission. That would be $111 billion at a minimum.

Add in SMUD, WAPA, LADWP, SDGE, And SCE and you are looking a a hefty price tag.
 
Last edited:
What has changed over the last 20 years in how power was distributed to the masses?
In suburban areas where there is a mass of population to defer the charges of underground. Out in the rural areas it is so cost prohibitive. My first house was 800 feet from power and they ran lines for no cost. Now I could not afford to pay for it...

https://firejustice.com/pge-allowed-500000-violations-of-state-law-in-tree-trimming/

$400 million spent on tree trimming.
 
Stockholders of PG&E don't make money on rising stock values, they make money on dividends. So the price going down doesn't really effect them like you might think.

Once upon a time I was a military acquisition officer. The crap that private military contractors were allowed to get away with because of the whole too big to fail mentality and the fact that the major military contractors had consolidated so much that for certain capital equipment needs there were only 2 companies left that could produce the product was sickening. Massive massive massive fuck ups and unnecessary cost overruns eaten by the tax payer because making the contractor comply with the contract would bankrupt them. Hard to learn a lesson when Uncle Sam says it's ok, we got this, do better next time.
 
PG&E and SoCal Edison would be smart to acquire (or contract) and maintain their own fleet of DC10 Fire bombers. Serious comment.
 
wazzuFreddo said:
PG&E alone has 18,466 miles of transmission. That would be $111 billion at a minimum.

Add in SMUD, WAPA, LADWP, SDGE, And SCE and you are looking a a hefty price tag.
Click to expand...

I would think that the smaller distribution and transmission lines are the bulk of the issues as they are closer to the ground and vegetation so WAPA, wouldn't really have much to do in this area. Also a portion of PG&E's 18,000+ miles of transmission and distribution doesn't even occur in areas where large wildlfires are much of a concern, like down in the central valley. If going underground is a serious solution it could be applied to those areas with the greatest risk of wildfires. This would be cheaper than $111 billion. SMUD has some facilities that come down from the UARP, and those are mostly large transmission structures not often associated with wildfire (tall steel lattus work structures). But most of SMUDs stuff is in the valley so they would likely have some to do but not that much to go underground in high risk areas. SDGE and SCE may be different, I am not familiar with either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top