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

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

#261

Post by l_t » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

marcyb5st wrote: post #231

Honest question here: I'm from Italy and here we have problems with fires as well. However, here power lines and district transformers are placed underground except high voltage and ultra high voltage ones, but those are above tree height and rely on much sturdier metal structures. My understanding is that burying power lines is cheaper in the long run and less prone to failures (trees falling, cars smashing the util…

Many new developments in the US do use buried wires. But a lot also still use poles. It's hit and miss.

From what I remember, PG&E is notorious for "procrastinating" on maintenance of its wires, as well. Wires need to be regularly checked and have nearby foliage trimmed to a safe distance. Keeping up on this maintenance would reduce the risk of fires, but California is big and the utility has decided it doesn't want to do that. So the poles are more dangerous than they should be.

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

#262

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

isoskeles wrote: post #236

zaroth wrote: post #127

Judge William Alsup (remember him?) who is overseeing the PG&E case in San Francisco said about shutoffs; “The prudent thing to do when you’re uncertain is to turn the power off,” he said. “When the public complains that everything in the refrigerator is bad and the ice cream melted, then you could blame the judge. I’m willing to take the heat.” [1] - https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-stock-...

It's unfortunate, living out here, that people are flipping their collective shit over the power outages, at least on the internet. Not a single real person I know is angry about this, although I can understand anger if you were actually negatively impacted. We have no way of knowing what would have happened without the power outages. PG&E's actions may have prevented a fire in this otherwise difficult situation, as…

I am angry.

If they don't want to be in the utility business, California should confiscate it from them and sell it to somebody else who does.

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

#263

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #199

thereisnospork wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do they have contracts saying they will provide power 100% of the time? Is them shutting the power off different from a tree falling on the line cutting power off? What if power went out due to some equipment failing that they didn't perform proper maintenance on?

They are a Public Utility, granted a monopoly in exchange for providing reliable power distribution. If they can't do that, they have no reason to exist at all, certainly not as a monopoly.

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

#264

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

Simulacra wrote: post #114

williamDafoe wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that CA impeached the governor Gray Davis in 2000 for power outages .. I bet that PG&e is thinking of doing the same thing today to Gavin Newsom!

Point of clarification: It was a recall, not impeachment. Impeachment is an act of the legislature, recall is an act of the voters.[0] [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recal...

Furthermore, he was not recalled for the power outages. His recall was bankrolled by those he was fighting having California pay the $80Bn embezzled with the aid of Enron and Dynegy.

Arnold Schwarzneggar stole the governership, and promptly made the state pay the $80Bn. Californians paid through the nose for going along with the recall.

If Gavin gets hit with a recall, it will be more of the same. Californians will be the poorer for it. There are a lot of billionaires here, but also widespread extreme poverty. No coincidence, that.

It is very cheap to run a recall campaign in California.

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

#265

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #105

Dylan16807 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are clearly signaling to the politicians that they better shield them from further liability or expect more of this behavior. It's not exactly hard to fight back against that. Make fires cost them enormous sums of money, and make outages also cost them enormous sums of money. Give them extremely clear monetary incentives to improve as many lines as possible and make shutdowns as small as possible.

If spending the money on infrastructure without a rate increase bankrupts them, keeping the lights on without spending the money bankrupts them and turning the lights off bankrupts them then the result is always that they go bankrupt. It's not possible to get around "totally reliable, totally safe, inexpensive; pick two" by passing a law mandating all three.

Keeping the lights on didn't bankrupt them. Paying billion-dollar dividends while neglecting maintenance bankrupted them.

There are plenty of utility companies who manage to make a profit, deliver reliable service, and not start wildfires. If PGE can't, others would be happy to step up.

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

#266

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #254

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company selling shares to raise capital is an alternative to other methods of raising capital, like taking out a loan. Asking why they don't just make smaller profits is like asking why they don't just pay a lower interest rate on their loans. It presumes that someone exists who is willing to lend them the money at the lower rate of return. Companies have the option of shutting down operations and selling off their…

> A company selling shares to raise capital is an alternative to other methods of raising capital, like taking out a loan. Not selling shares. Having smaller dividends . That doesn't assume anyone is willing to loan them money. > If their profits fall below the level that could be achieved by selling off those assets and then investing the money at the market rate of return, it becomes profitable for raiders to come…

Yes. The State should confiscate their assets and sell them to somebody willing to meet the obligations of a Public Utility. Lots of companies do, and make tidy, predictable profits.

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

#267

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

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…

> I hate to sound callous...

No, you don't.

Not everybody can do everything they need to be safe against collapse of society. Many thousands die every year for lack of the dollars safety would cost. Medical costs regularly bankrupt families. A backup generator, vs. food on the table? Clearly, the generator has to wait.

It is clear that power was cut over hundreds of square miles that were under no fire threat. People died just to give PGE leverage to force the state to indemnify them against their own negligence.

PGE provided a tent at the El Dorado County fairground, with outlets. For 100 people, for the entire county. All were taken by people's medical equipment, and many, many more turned away.

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

#268

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #252

wglb wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much should we spend? And for what length of outage? One week of full backup would be quite expensive.

You should have enough to shelter in place for a reasonable outage, plus enough that when that clock runs out, to decide you need to head to the hospital, and enough time to actually get there. People who aren’t capable of planning this out for themselves should have a social worker doing it for them, and obviously people need to be capable of operating their life essential equipment at home, or they need someone on…

The irresponsibility is clearly on PGE's side. There was no noticeable wind in most of the areas cut, and none predicted. The cut amounted to simple extortion: indemnify us against consequences of our own deliberate negligence, or we will cut again!

Trees did not just start growing near power lines last year. PGE have decades of data, and know in excruciating detail what consequences to expect from sending out billion-dollar dividends instead of performing maintenance.

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

#269

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #224

kaens wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Medicaid should cover it.

Why not PGE? What control does Medicaid have over power distribution system maintenance?

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

#270

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #229

arbitrary_name wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the threat of liabilities to get a sweetheart price from the hedge fund owners whos hands are tied. Offer bondolders a good deal, and refinance using state bonds to handle the liabilities.

Don't forget the "legislate away the liabilities after you become owner" part.

No. Maintain, and let the previous owners pay for their own liabilities.