‘This Did Not Go Well’: Inside PG&E’s Blackout Control Room

Post by lugg » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 7:21 AM UTC

qqqwerty wrote: post #182

Just to provide some context, there was a pretty big fire in Southern California[1] the same week as the PG&E blackouts. The humidity across CA was really low, which is just as much as a factor as the wind. On one hand, the blackouts were probably excessive, and possibly politically motivated. On the other, no major wildfires occurred in PG&E territory, but a fairly large one happened in LADWP territory[1]. PG&E is i…

Post by roenxi » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 7:40 AM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #123

roenxi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure and use that money for bonuses and dividends. They aren't incentivised to be excessively lean. The incentive structure for someone who has spent a fortune on expensive capital investment is to maintain it. There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles…

There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles and wires then letting it degrade over time. Sure there is: short-term profit.

Post by stickfigure » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 7:45 AM UTC

snagglegaggle wrote: post #189

wavefunction wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard a working-class lady on the radio discussing the $150 of groceries in her refrigerator that were going to waste and how that's a lot of money for her family. I'd rather have that $150 than a silly opportunity to blame some old out-of-touch judge.

There is also a man who was on oxygen who died. He was not able to get to his unpowered backup. The cause of death was listed as heart failure, though it is very likely the heart appeared stressed due to the hypoxia.

Post by shortandsweet » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 7:49 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #188

zaroth wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also made that point. But his point here is that if we’re willing to assign liability to PG&E for damages from a brushfire sparked tomorrow... if in your mind PG&E is truly responsible for any resulting death or destruction if a tree falls on their transmission lines during a time of critical fire risk and sparks a blaze.... then it is not only prudent, but it would be morally and economically imperative to shut d…

While I think everyone agrees that PG&E has been somewhat negligent in maintaining its network - as someone who works with utilities, I agree with you - I think its absurd to try to bill all the costs of every fire to the utility that may have sparked it - it's exceedingly irrational to do so. PG&E has no control over the weather, winds, firefighting budgets, or forest policy, yet it alone is now to be held in total…

Post by Thorrez » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

thereisnospork wrote: post #77

dstroot wrote: post #11

It will be interesting watching how all this plays out. As others have noted the liability math has certainly changed. Enough to bankrupt one of the largest utility companies in the country. One the other hand this is also a political statement. They are clearly signaling to the politicians that they better shield them from further liability or expect more of this behavior. Shut the power down when the wind blows, af…

This may be a naive question, but why aren't they being bankrupted (or hurt financially) for cutting off the power voluntarily? Their nominal job is to provide power, not doing so for reasons that aren't acts of god should open them to liability and/or (severe) penalties for violation of contract. If the appropriate legal framework doesn't currently exist I can't imagine a 'The lights stay on' bill would be all that…