
PG&E electricity shutoff confirmed for nearly 800k Northern CA customers - zenbob
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article235904227.html
======
t0mas88
Reading this I imagined their management team sitting around a table
discussing: "So the litigation happy people have sued us for billions,
legislators refuse to protect us and insurance is not going to cover this at
any affordable cost. Best move is to shut down power, that will avoid claims
and make it known to Joe the Plumber that current policy is ridiculous." Other
MT member: "But Bob, we're the power company, we can't turn off the power!"
and the final conclusion being that best best chess move is to actually turn
off the power.

I predict that they'll win and within the next few years local politicians are
going to change something to ensure the power stays on.

~~~
mdorazio
Exactly. Some kind of middle ground needs to be found here - either a
limitation of liability at some level or some kind of agreed-upon thermal
event monitoring shared between PG&E and local fire departments. Otherwise the
only business-viable alternative is to keep turning off the power. Burying
equipment/lines would probably cost enough to bankrupt them.

Of course, the alternative for customers is to install a Powerwall or
equivalent for these situations, so maybe this is good for Tesla/distributed
grid proponents?

~~~
nostrademons
They're already bankrupt - filed for Chapter 11 at the beginning of this year.

What they should've been doing all along is maintaining their damn equipment -
the reason we have regulated public monopolies is so that they can generate
sufficient revenues to afford long-term capital investments that prevent
things like this. There're a bunch of systemic failures here, some on the part
of CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) and some on PG&E management.
But given that we're here, blackouts are probably preferable to burning up
half the state again.

It does make me want to just go off-grid with a Powerwall and solar panels. If
we don't actually get reliable electricity out of the deal, exactly what are
we paying the electricity company for? But that's challenging as a renter, and
buying (and maintaining) a house in California is equally challenging.

------
taylodl
This is where an $11 Billion wildfire settlement leads. If PG&E are being held
financially responsible for the actions of their transmission and distribution
lines in high wind events then I would expect them to fight for the right to
not transmit and distribute power in those events. What's bad for consumers is
even though you may not live in a high wind area the transmission lines
ultimately serving you may be in one and subsequently shut off. On a more
positive note, if these actions prevent wildfires that destroy property and
claim lives then isn't it worth it?

------
MrEldritch
This kinda sucks, but what else are they supposed to do? It's already been
established that any wildfires caused by their equipment will be their fault;
cutting off power in case of potential wildfires would seem to be the only
logical way to respond to that reality.

~~~
jdashg
It seems like the right move today, but ideally moving forward we see an
investment in infrastructure. (either in more robust transmission or more
localized production)

