Wine Country Ablaze

[CoorsLight]

Blaming them for a gas line that explodes randomly.

Interesting take. I guess you weren't aware of the mis-installed gas line. Or that it had been welded several times. Or that PG&E wasn't maintaining or repairing gas lines regularly. Or that the money the PG&E charged its users to maintain and repair gas lines was instead being used for executive bonuses. Or that people reported smelling gas in the area in the days leading to the deadly fire and nothing was done.

"Explodes randomly."

Eight people burned alive. No PG&E executives were charged.

 

[RightCoastBias]

I think people should shut off their power and live in the dark to protest.

Most places I've lived there's multiple power/gas/oil companies and you are not stuck with a shitty provider. Around here, we can't vote with our dollars and choose another provider if we're unhappy with PG&E. They can blow up towns, charge us for the clean up, repair and settlement.

So much for the free market and choice we are supposed to get with American capitalism.

 

[CoorsLight]

Most places I've lived there's multiple power/gas/oil companies and you are not stuck with a shitty provider. Around here, we can't vote with our dollars and choose another provider if we're unhappy with PG&E. They can blow up towns, charge us for the clean up, repair and settlement.

So much for the free market and choice we are supposed to get with American capitalism.

Doh! The so-called free market makes people sheeple once again.

 

[budman]

This is a bit tough on PG & E.

The infrastructure is so huge and mother nature is a beast. The lawsuits will line up now and ultimately we will pay for them.

 

[Climber]

Most places I've lived there's multiple power/gas/oil companies and you are not stuck with a shitty provider. Around here, we can't vote with our dollars and choose another provider if we're unhappy with PG&E. They can blow up towns, charge us for the clean up, repair and settlement.

So much for the free market and choice we are supposed to get with American capitalism.

Capitalize profits, socialize loses.

It's the American way!

 

[tzrider]

This is a bit tough on PG & E.

The infrastructure is so huge and mother nature is a beast. The lawsuits will line up now and ultimately we will pay for them.

If PG&E is found at fault for this, the company will not be recognizable after the settlements are done. The aftermath of the San Bruno fire was significant (even if no charges were filed) and that disaster was a rounding error compared to this one.

 

[i_am_the_koi]

Interesting take. I guess you weren't aware of the mis-installed gas line. Or that it had been welded several times. Or that PG&E wasn't maintaining or repairing gas lines regularly. Or that the money the PG&E charged its users to maintain and repair gas lines was instead being used for executive bonuses. Or that people reported smelling gas in the area in the days leading to the deadly fire and nothing was done.

"Explodes randomly."

Eight people burned alive. No PG&E executives were charged.

Agree to all of this.

Randomly was in reference to no natural causes.

No earthquake or winds or storm.

Just boom.


This was not random. This was weather.

 

[RightCoastBias]

If an individual left their BBQ burning over night, not properly extinguishing it and it started a fire that weather spun into a disaster such as we're seeing now, would be not be bling that individual?

Negligence is negligence as far as I see it.

 

[boney]

From the article, it seems PG&E is responsible to keep the trees away from power lines.

As for a defensible home, I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. But that has nothing to do with PG&E, unless you're saying PG&E did not maintain a defensive zone around their power lines.

Sure, PGE is responsible to keep the trees from the lines. But I'm sure they're only required to maintain a specific clearance, not clear the trees from the area. Should we have a complete fire break under each and every power line as they do under the big towers strung across the state? I'm pretty sure that "we" don't know what that clearance is, and even if they do keep it, whats to say the 300 foot tree 200 feet away doesn't blow over and hit the lines? We are not talking 10 feet. We are talking hundreds of feet. Who's responsibility is that?

Trees fall on wires all the time. It's a hazard. To point to PGE and blame it all on them? Probably not the first thing I would do.

There is a balance between how much it costs to maintain this infrastructure and how much we are willing to pay in rates to have it. Then there's the argument whether it should be a public entity or a private company (which must prop up it's stock prices).

The price of any settlement that *may* come from this will be out of our pockets in the form of increased rates, just like those from the San Bruno explosion. The system is stacked against us. We will pay.

 

[Climber]

Sure, PGE is responsible to keep the trees from the lines. But I'm sure they're only required to maintain a specific clearance, not clear the trees from the area. Should we have a complete fire break under each and every power line as they do under the big towers strung across the state? I'm pretty sure that "we" don't know what that clearance is, and even if they do keep it, whats to say the 300 foot tree 200 feet away doesn't blow over and hit the lines? We are not talking 10 feet. We are talking hundreds of feet. Who's responsibility is that?

Trees fall on wires all the time. It's a hazard. To point to PGE and blame it all on them? Probably not the first thing I would do.

There is a balance between how much it costs to maintain this infrastructure and how much we are willing to pay in rates to have it. Then there's the argument whether it should be a public entity or a private company (which must prop up it's stock prices).

The price of any settlement that *may* come from this will be out of our pockets in the form of increased rates, just like those from the San Bruno explosion. The system is stacked against us. We will pay.

Which is why their negligence will continue until there are criminal charges brought against their Execs.

Nothing else has any teeth whatsoever and it has been proven over and over again that fines will absolutely not curb bad behavior.

Insanity/stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

[byke]

PG&E is a real piece of shit company at the executive level, but they subcontract another company to inspect and mark high risk trees and then another company to take them down. As much as I dislike them, I don't see how they're to blame, at least morally, as long as they're directing the subs to inspect everything using sound methods.

I don't know anything about power infrastructure, but if you had the ability to kill power when the load goes to zero after a certain point in the line, or if there were a sudden change in the length of a cable, then there'd be no sparks to set fires. In the fiber world, there's an OTDR for locating breaks in a line and I *think* there's a tool that roughly does the same with cable, but maybe you can't use them while the cable is live, I dunno.

 

[RightCoastBias]

Sure, PGE is responsible to keep the trees from the lines. But I'm sure they're only required to maintain a specific clearance, not clear the trees from the area. Should we have a complete fire break under each and every power line as they do under the big towers strung across the state? I'm pretty sure that "we" don't know what that clearance is, and even if they do keep it, whats to say the 300 foot tree 200 feet away doesn't blow over and hit the lines? We are not talking 10 feet. We are talking hundreds of feet. Who's responsibility is that?

Trees fall on wires all the time. It's a hazard. To point to PGE and blame it all on them? Probably not the first thing I would do.

There is a balance between how much it costs to maintain this infrastructure and how much we are willing to pay in rates to have it. Then there's the argument whether it should be a public entity or a private company (which must prop up it's stock prices).

The price of any settlement that *may* come from this will be out of our pockets in the form of increased rates, just like those from the San Bruno explosion. The system is stacked against us. We will pay.

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying. But the claim in the article is that they didn't maintain the trees as they were supposed to and that caused a fire. I'm not talking about, nor is the article, anything more.

The fact that we'd pay for any settlement is an unfortunate truth, doesn't mean we should ignore responsibility if it does indeed land on PG&E. It's a lose/lose really.

The cost/benefit of maintaining the infrastructure they're paid to maintain is difficult to swallow when they're maintaining things improperly, i.e. San Bruno. Taking money and not maintaining safety obligations is par for the course for large American corporations. To me, the theft on top of negligence is abhorrent.

At this point, we don't know what started the fire and blaming PG&E is easy given their track record. But I'll be interested to see the cause regardless and hope we can be smarter and more diligent about preventing this sort of fire. That includes corporations maintaining obligations and homeowners doing what they can to defend their homes before the fire starts.

 

[CoorsLight]

PG&E is a real piece of shit company at the executive level, but they subcontract another company to inspect and mark high risk trees and then another company to take them down. As much as I dislike them, I don't see how they're to blame, at least morally, as long as they're directing the subs to inspect everything using sound methods.

I don't know anything about power infrastructure, but if you had the ability to kill power when the load goes to zero after a certain point in the line, or if there were a sudden change in the length of a cable, then there'd be no sparks to set fires. In the fiber world, there's an OTDR for locating breaks in a line and I *think* there's a tool that roughly does the same with cable, but maybe you can't use them while the cable is live, I dunno.

Subcontracting should not be used as a mechanism to eliminate accountability.

 

[Lunch Box]

Subcontracting should not be used as a mechanism to eliminate accountability.

Correct. That shit sure as hell doesn't fly in biotech/pharma.

All of the back and forth here has been interesting. What I would like to know are the specifics of PG&E's responsibilities with respect to line maintenance and brush clearing, and whether or not those responsibilities were met. If they were met, then perhaps we should look more closely at the responsibilities themselves. if not, then PG&E is culpable.

 

[byke]

Subcontracting should not be used as a mechanism to eliminate accountability.

Which is why I specifically said morally. I'm sure they used subs with the area in the Butte fire and PG&E was held liable. Or like with Ford getting sued over their Firestone tires. You're legally responsible, but a business can't do everything all the way through their chain and what can you do when someone you use a product/service from, fucks up? Presuming you're not working with a known shitty company, your only options are in hindsight. All you can do is not use them again, but the damage is already done.

 

[Climber]

Subcontracting should not be used as a mechanism to eliminate accountability.

This.

I remember when a group of piece of shit tech companies offered rebates, but they hired a company to pay out those rebates. The company went bankrupt (massively underfunded or a strategy from the start?) and thus everybody who was expecting a rebate got thoroughly screwed. Not sure if there was a lawsuit ever filed, the tech companies stated that they weren't the ones responsible. Assholes!

 

[avu3]

Just last week, someone in a local FB group mentioned that she noticed a tree limb was sagging and actually pressing on power lines. Several other people chimed in and agreed it was power, not cable or telephone.

She called PGE, they told her they don't trim trees anymore and she should contact the city.

In all the places I've lived save 2, there were trees growing up into the powerlines. That's just... natural to me. People love mature trees and shade. I remember back in the 70s PGE used to come trim them - but never as often or as much as needed to really keep them out of the lines.

The last place I lived had some sort of really weak tree that was huge and dropped a 20' limb that was over 1' at its base 1-2x per year, and was grown over and threw power lines. Landlord and PGE didn't seem to mind - what am I to say as the tenant?

My new place has below ground power lines. I prefer it this way.

 

[CoorsLight]

Which is why I specifically said morally. I'm sure they used subs with the area in the Butte fire and PG&E was held liable. Or like with Ford getting sued over their Firestone tires. You're legally responsible, but a business can't do everything all the way through their chain and what can you do when someone you use a product/service from, fucks up? Presuming you're not working with a known shitty company, your only options are in hindsight. All you can do is not use them again, but the damage is already done.

So if some corporations cannot control the scope of work for their subcontractors, it invites a finger pointing situation out of which no one can be held accountable for negligence that leads to loss of life? How is this sensical, whether morally, ethically, or legally?

 

[byke]

So if some corporations cannot control the scope of work for their subcontractors, it invites a finger pointing situation out of which no one can be held accountable for negligence that leads to loss of life? How is this sensical, whether morally, ethically, or legally?

I think PG&E has been held liable and then it's up to them to go after whomever. I don't know about the details of their cases, but they certainly didn't invent the game of fingerpointing in the courtroom.

Just think up some parallels where you sell a product which uses other products and then for that third party company to have an issue which negatively affects your product. Something you've used a hundred times and had no reason to think anything would change, then one day it does. Totally outside of your control. You feel morally responsible? If you did, it'd be artificially self imposed, imo. You can feel bad because it sucks, but I'm generally unable to feel responsible for things other people do that are outside of my control.

 

[CoorsLight]

I think PG&E has been held liable and then it's up to them to go after whomever. I don't know about the details of their cases, but they certainly didn't invent the game of fingerpointing in the courtroom.

Just think up some parallels where you sell a product which uses other products and then for that third party company to have an issue which negatively affects your product. Something you've used a hundred times and had no reason to think anything would change, then one day it does. Totally outside of your control. You feel morally responsible? If you did, it'd be artificially self imposed, imo. You can feel bad because it sucks, but I'm generally unable to feel responsible for things other people do that are outside of my control.

Are you comparing non-sanctioned use of a product to the negligence of subcontractors performing sanctioned and sponsor-endorsed work? If so I don't get the connection.