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

211–220 of 291 posts

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

#211

Post by closeparen »

speedplane wrote: post #202
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…

> 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 o…

The law is strict liability, meaning it doesn't matter whether there was a good-faith effort to prevent the problem or not.

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

#212

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by leereeves »

wavefunction wrote: post #173
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".

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.

It sounds like you're saying she shouldn't have bought those groceries, but PG&E only promises 2 days warning, and $150 is maybe a week's groceries for a family. Should people to go to the grocery store every 2 days to avoid food spoiling during blackouts?

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

#214

Post by roenxi »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #209
roenxi wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incr…

> If you've got a better name for it I'm all ears.

'Incompetence' would be the normal choice. And standard run-of-the mill incompetence has nothing to do with profit motives or incentives.

You can get incompetence with any governance structure; it isn't related to profit motives. If they are being sued by their own shareholders that is quite solid evidence that it isn't capitalist incentives that are the problem.

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

#215

Post by dredmorbius »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #87
dredmorbius wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are numerous public utilities in California, and elsewhere. Generally the costs are lower and service levels higher than privately-held corporations. Granted, most munis don't have to deal with long-distance distribution, though there are four federal power administrations which do, the Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations. Also the Tennessee Valley Authority.

> Granted, most munis don't have to deal with long-distance distribution That really seems to be the only thing that matters here, given that the issue is about the liabilities fires due to lack of line maintenance in forested areas.

That fails to consider the second part of my statement. The government-run power administrations are all about long-distance transmission.

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

#216

Post by roenxi »

speedplane wrote: post #202
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…

> 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 o…

> 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.

A literalist interpretation of this quote is 'when there is a fire, hold the utility responsible unless it can be proven otherwise'.

If that is to be the standard then a utility can't afford to run when there is a fire risk. Realistically that law is unenforceable due to being too expensive, but proving that in practice will involve a lot of pain for either shareholders or ratepayers.

Innocent unless proven otherwise is the usual standard for a good reason - it is a mistake to punish without substantial evidence that has been closely reviewed by a number of legal and technical experts.

> Second, a large utility is not like a private company. We cannot let a large utility fail

Figure out a way to let it fail. Maybe the lines are state owned but companies can partake in an auction for a 12-month exclusive right to maintain the line and charge people for using it. Too-big-to-fail is a problem that can be fixed.

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

#217

Post by kaens »

zaroth wrote: post #185
untog wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That attitude is all very well until you remember that there are people with medical equipment out there and literally rely on power to live. I’m not saying there are easy fixes but I don’t think flippantly disregarding concern has the right approach either.

Yes, I saw the story that someone who was on oxygen died during the outage. People with life essential medical equipment which runs on electrical power absolutely must ensure they have a backup power supply, be ready to activate it, and have a plan should an outage continue beyond their backup capacity. Power goes out, whether it’s a blackout, brownout, planned maintenance, or otherwise. Everyone should have plans fo…

And people who are not capable of having a backup power supply?

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

#218

Post by chiph »

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…

For residential customers that can afford it - battery backed solar installs will be on the rise.

For industry, they will likely install their own generators, either diesel or natural gas. Which raises environmental concerns - it's no good having clean hydro or wind power, if you can't get it to where it's needed.

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

#219

Post by [deleted] »

kaens wrote: post #217
zaroth wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I saw the story that someone who was on oxygen died during the outage. People with life essential medical equipment which runs on electrical power absolutely must ensure they have a backup power supply, be ready to activate it, and have a plan should an outage continue beyond their backup capacity. Power goes out, whether it’s a blackout, brownout, planned maintenance, or otherwise. Everyone should have plans fo…

And people who are not capable of having a backup power supply?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN