Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 291 posts

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

#201

Post by shortandsweet »

rrss wrote: post #184
romaaeterna wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm afraid that you can't materially reduce the fires by preventing some (small) number of ignitions. The problem is the dry brush buildup. Something will spark it eventually. Having someone to blame is fun politics, but it's not going to get California out of the mess. It's not even a fire management problem. California covers a region of the world that has been having decades or centuries-long drought phases fo…

I didn't say you could materially reduce fires, only the ones caused by PG&Es negligence. There will still be fires, but maybe they won't be caused-in-fact by lack of reasonable maintenance of power lines.

Ok so? Wild fires keep happening. When will the state take responsibility for what they own instead of trying to pawn it off on the utility?

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

#202

Post by speedplane »

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…

> I think its absurd to try to bill all the costs of every fire to the utility that may have sparked it ... PG&E has no control over the weather, winds, firefighting budgets, or forest policy, yet it alone is now to be held in total responsibility for all fires that originate with its equipment? thats absurd.

There are two reasons why you're wrong.

First, PG&E can't control the weather but did have control over its operations, e.g., how it maintained its equipment, how much it prepared for problems, how it managed risk. It may be tricky to determine if it's truly at fault, but it's equally tricky to determine that it's in the clear.

Second, a large utility is not like a private company. We cannot let a large utility fail, and therefore they are more like a government organization than a private company. When they mess up and hurt people, everyone needs to pitch in and help, not just those that are affected, as everyone shares the benefits and responsibilities of keeping them afloat.

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

#203

Post by shortandsweet »

maxerickson wrote: post #47
patfla wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting power lines underground is very expensive - meaning, very nearly prohibitively so. Or actually prohibitively so when you consider that PG&E has to serve vast areas of wilderness in California. Paradise (Camp fire) was sufficiently west that I think its own power lines did not travel through Natl Forest however if I'm not mistaken it was hit by fire from the east (pushed by a wind out of the east), further up…

If there are areas that we can't afford to safely provide power to, we shouldn't provide power to those areas anymore. This is course a bummer given the past effort to provide power to those areas, but maybe it's okay to acknowledge mistakes.

They are required to provide that power. By law.

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

#204

Post by masonic »

williamDafoe wrote: post #82

PG&E is the worst power company in the western hemisphere. First in 2000 they had massive power outages due to early deregulation which led to the impeachment of governor Gray Davis. In 2017 the company killed thousands of customers and billions in property because of fires they caused! Now in 2019 they are doing massive shutdowns and directly killing their customers on life support! We have the highest prices (.22c…

Davis was recalled by voters, not impeached.

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

#205

Post by shortandsweet »

stickfigure wrote: post #195
snagglegaggle wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate to sound callous - every death is a tragedy to friends and family - but this seems like the least sympathetic victim in the whole affair. If your life depends on oxygen, then it is your responsibility to ensure its continued supply whether or not the wall socket works . The fact that there were generous warnings only compounds the self-neglect. Oxygen-dependent COPD is no joke. PG&E is not your healthcare prov…

Incredibly callous. You should be ashamed. A 2 day notification is nothing especially as the entire state scrambles for backup power. What right does pg and e have to decide who lives and dies?

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

#206

Post by zizee »

shortandsweet wrote: post #197
Aloha wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But they do. They could bury the lines. They literally get a guaranteed profit by doing so due to the way the business is setup.

Is this true though? PG&E has to seek approval on rate increases. From all reports it is expensive to bury power lines, and PG&E would need to raise a significant amount of money to bury even a small percentage of their lines.

(Fwiw this is just a gut feeling, I don't have actual numbers to back anything up)

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

#207

Post by benj111 »

zaroth wrote: post #178
rectang wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alsup is my favorite jurist. He's 74; may he preside forever. The above quote benefits from a little more context. Alsup's point is that PG&E paid dividends while slashing the maintenance budget — and as a judge, he's willing to step in and say "that's not right".

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…

"fire brakes"

The accepted spelling is break btw. I was prompted to check though as this spelling if anything fits the usage at least as well as the 'proper' spelling.

"A firebreak is a gap in vegetation or other combustible material that acts as a barrier to slow or stop the progress of a bushfire"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak

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

#208

Post by snagglegaggle »

stickfigure wrote: post #195
snagglegaggle wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate to sound callous - every death is a tragedy to friends and family - but this seems like the least sympathetic victim in the whole affair. If your life depends on oxygen, then it is your responsibility to ensure its continued supply whether or not the wall socket works . The fact that there were generous warnings only compounds the self-neglect. Oxygen-dependent COPD is no joke. PG&E is not your healthcare prov…

Do not overestimate people's ability to stay informed. The elderly and infirm may have issues receiving those alerts. The given times may not actually reflect when the blackout will occur. Most utilities handle this by keeping a list of people with life-critical medical devices. In case of an outage they send emergency services.

It appears he did have a backup, but was not able to get to it in time.

People get hit criminally and civilly for things far lamer than this. Are some of those wrong? Yes. But interrupting what is supposed to be a continuous service is not acceptable, especially as the lack of maintenance was self-inflicted.

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

#209

Post by inferiorhuman »

roenxi wrote: post #193
inferiorhuman wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That isn't an incentive, that is just greed. And not actual "make the most money" greed, but stupid greed where that is the choice that they would make if they don't think at all and nobody points out the obvious to them. Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid. There is no incentive to do that. They would make more money milking the grid for long-term prof…

Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid.

If you've got a better name for it I'm all ears. But PG&E has been neglecting their infrastructure at least since the early 90s when their lackadaisical approach to clearing brush led to the Sierra Fire in '94.

Keep in mind that PG&E's record keeping was so lax that they blew up a neighborhood in San Bruno after increasing the pressure on a gas pipeline without knowing if the line could support such pressure. Apparently PG&E also got sued a couple years ago by shareholders alleging gross mismanagement and demanding safety reforms. I'd say there's plenty of stupid and greed at PG&E to go around.

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

#210

Post by inferiorhuman »

masonic wrote: post #196
inferiorhuman wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CAHSR died the death of a thousand paper cuts (e.g. SF and south bay routing, grade separation, signalling, trump). All of that created an untenable situation. The closest equivalent with municipal power is the gobs of money PG&E has spent trying to kill local and statewide public power legislation.

In one comment chain, we have Regan (sic) blamed for "privatizing" CA utilities and Trump blamed for CAHSR.

In one comment chain, we have Regan (sic) blamed for "privatizing" CA utilities and Trump blamed for CAHSR.

Whether or not you agree with his actions Trump absolutely tried to kill CAHSR.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-high-speed-rail-20...

Post reply on HN