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

281–290 of 291 posts

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

#281

Post by dredmorbius »

listenallyall wrote: post #272
dredmorbius wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PG&E was never a public utility. I suspect the harm meant was more of the general form of "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem". http://factmyth.com/factoids/reagan-said-government-is-the-p...

Except that poster wanted the utility to be taken over by the government. Thus the comment was in favor of increasing government.

Which could well be a good thing. Reagan's dictum is often invoked to mindlessly reject any such possibility.

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

#282

Post by hackbinary »

hackeraccount wrote: post #58
hackbinary wrote: post #38

Natural monopolies should not be private.

At some point - and I suspect PG&E has reached this point but I'm not sure - a regulated monopoly is the same thing as a public utility. If you tell someone what they have to do, what they can charge and how much they can make then what's the distinction but that entity and part of the government?

Decisions about investments and what to do with profits come immediately to mind.

It is not like you have had a market choice to decide to payout dividends to shareholders or to maintain transmission lines.

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

#283

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> Not selling shares. Having smaller dividends. That doesn't assume anyone is willing to loan them money.

They already sold the shares and used the money to buy trucks and stuff. The dividends are effectively the interest on that money.

Suppose (made up numbers) that they have ten billion dollars in assets, but a twelve billion dollar market cap because of the expectation that those assets will be used to make future profits. Now you say "just make smaller profits" which means their market cap falls to eight billion dollars because of the expectation of smaller dividends.

Someone on Wall St then notices that they can make two billion dollars by buying them for eight billion and selling their assets for ten.

> I'm not sure via what mechanism, exactly, but it should not be possible for a monopoly power company to just dissolve and sell off the trucks for a tiny quick profit.

The government always has the option to be the buyer itself, or find one that wants to continue operating as a power company. But then it either has to raise its own capital or bring about a regulatory environment that allows a private company to meet the market rate of return and thereby raise a sufficient amount of private capital.

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

#284

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #255
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there no desire to take the path that bankrupts them the least? > It's not possible to get around "totally reliable, totally safe, inexpensive; pick two" by passing a law mandating all three. Oh I'm not asking for that at all. They used to be pretty reliable, pretty safe, kind of expensive. After neglecting lines they got to pretty reliable, not very safe, kind of expensive. With the shutdowns they shift to not ve…

> Is there no desire to take the path that bankrupts them the least?

They would presumably take whichever option bankrupts them the slowest, but if all the roads lead to the same destination, eventually you end up there.

> They used to be pretty reliable, pretty safe, kind of expensive. After neglecting lines they got to pretty reliable, not very safe, kind of expensive. With the shutdowns they shift to not very reliable, pretty safe, kind of expensive. They need to go back to where they started.

I don't think that's even really what happened. It's not as if the occasional power line never caught fire thirty years ago.

The reason the Camp Fire was so destructive has more to do with climate change than PG&E maintenance. It could as easily have been a cigarette or a lightning strike and it would have been the same result.

But that's likely to continue to be the case. Fires in California are going to be more severe than they used to be.

Which may justify them being more conservative or spending more on maintenance than they ever did historically. But that isn't going to be free.

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

#285

Post by erik_seaberg »

ncmncm wrote: post #268
zaroth wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 billio…

Didn't some areas lose power only because they were served by lines leading into high wind areas?

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

#286

Post by Dylan16807 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #283
Dylan16807 wrote: post #254

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. 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…

> Not selling shares. Having smaller dividends . That doesn't assume anyone is willing to loan them money. They already sold the shares and used the money to buy trucks and stuff. The dividends are effectively the interest on that money. Suppose (made up numbers) that they have ten billion dollars in assets, but a twelve billion dollar market cap because of the expectation that those assets will be used to make futur…

For a utility, "keep being a utility" needs to be above "larger profits" on the list of core objectives, and shareholders need to accept that before buying in.

Whether that's just by writing it down, or having 30 billion in penalties if they stop delivering power, or by making dividends vest over 20 years...

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

#287

Post by Dylan16807 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #284
Dylan16807 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no desire to take the path that bankrupts them the least? > It's not possible to get around "totally reliable, totally safe, inexpensive; pick two" by passing a law mandating all three. Oh I'm not asking for that at all. They used to be pretty reliable, pretty safe, kind of expensive. After neglecting lines they got to pretty reliable, not very safe, kind of expensive. With the shutdowns they shift to not ve…

> Is there no desire to take the path that bankrupts them the least? They would presumably take whichever option bankrupts them the slowest, but if all the roads lead to the same destination, eventually you end up there. > They used to be pretty reliable, pretty safe, kind of expensive. After neglecting lines they got to pretty reliable, not very safe, kind of expensive. With the shutdowns they shift to not very reli…

> Which may justify them being more conservative or spending more on maintenance than they ever did historically. But that isn't going to be free.

It looks like their vegetation management budget was less than 2% of revenue from 2013-2017.

Doubling or tripling that, well, it wouldn't be free but it wouldn't be a huge hardship either.

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

#288

Post by ncmncm »

zaroth wrote: post #271
ncmncm wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because no utility can guarantee continuous service, nor should they economically be on the hook to provide batteries to everyone who needs 100% continuous service. Medicaid has no control over power distribution system maintenance but can absolutely foresee occasional unscheduled electrical outages occurring. Just like many essential buildings, like hospitals, provision their own electrical backup systems, so too mu…

You are being awfully free with your "shoulds".

Being granted a monopoly in exchange for operating a public utility creates a serious -- some would say sacred -- obligation.

How essential services are provisioned is a social choice. Formulaire notions like "Medicaid should do it" are not useful. Medicaid is staffed by people who understand medical services. Power distribution networks are staffed by people who understand power. It is far from clear that the former are the right people to be making choices about the latter.

It happens that my mother is in a semi-assisted facility. They had no power for three days, no backup power, and residents are not allowed generators. The phones there didn't work without power.

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

#289

Post by ncmncm »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #285
ncmncm wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 billio…

Didn't some areas lose power only because they were served by lines leading into high wind areas?

Some places. But the local PGE offices in places that were cut off had power delivered.

Extortionate behavior should be addressed by law enforcement. There should be a murder investigation for everybody killed by this action, and the executives responsible charged personally.

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

#290

Post by solotronics »

skybrian wrote: post #160
solotronics wrote: post #156

Is there not a technical solution to this? A side effect here will be people creating their own power systems. I have already had my power go off 4 times this year and now I am looking at solar panels, batteries, and a natural gas generator.

The solution is maintaining residential power lines well enough so they can't start fires. (But how much are people willing to pay for that?) Or, yes, buying a generator. Looks like Home Depot has a good selection.

So I did a bunch of research and the best generators of these types are the Winco and Cummins ones. The ones they sell at Home Depot are not meant to run more than a couple hours at a time.

If you want a generator that will run for weeks on its own you need to look for "off grid".

Post reply on HN