
PG&E turning off power to protect against fire has created a new disaster - DoreenMichele
https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-power-outage-pge-fires-new-kind-of-disaster.html
======
cddotdotslash
It's absolutely crazy reading about these events happening in a first world
country in the richest state in that country. Something has gone seriously
wrong when we're seeing near-daily stories about power outages in the tech
capital of the world. Combined with all the other issues plaguing CA right
now, I can't see why companies still base themselves there. Eventually the
"all the tech people are there" argument won't be strong enough and competing
markets like NYC, Seattle, and Austin will win out.

~~~
dredmorbius
In many parts of the world, power is unreliable due to a lack of resources --
fuel, capital, labour, distribution, maintenance. Power cuts occur, either
scheduled or unscheduled, due to an inability to meet demand.

The case in California is different. The fundamental resources are present:
there is fuel (or, in many cases, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, wind, or
solar power) for generation. Distribution systems exist. There is no shortage
of local labour. Systems aren't going offline due to direct failures of
maintenance.

Rather: the outages are prompted by a consequence risk. Given the extreme fire
danger throughout the state, the least source of ignition creates a fire
hazard, and electrical transmission and distribution equipment is a high risk
for such ignition.

Previous _major_ wildfires have been sparked by: mower blades, rims of flat
tires sparking on pavement, catalytic converters parked over dry grass, sparks
from a hammer. And electrical equipment.

There's a case to be made that PG&E have neglected maintenance activies _not_
related directly to continued operation of their plant, but to risk
mitigation, and I'm not going to argue one way or the other.

But the fundamental problem California's electric utilities face is _not_ that
of most of the world, where _means_ are insufficient, but that _consequence_
is too great to ignore. I'm coming to see this generally as a late-stage
dynamic in many technological areas, one in which the unintended consequences
(sometimes unanticipated, often not) simply rise to a level of major
significance. You might think of these generally as hygiene factors (the
phrase I've been using).

Past examples would include:

\- Basic personal and public hygiene factors for maintaining public health in
cities.

\- Pollution control laws affecting solid, liquid, and gas emissions of
activities and plants.

\- Environmental contamination as with lead, asbestos, pesticides, tobacco,
sulfur dioxide ("acid rain"), and CO2.

\- Individual psychological and widespread sociological negative impacts of
information overload, media saturation and manipulation, and computer systems
overexposure.

\- Running extensive high-capacity electrical distribution systems through
increasingly fire-prone landscapes.

Or put another way: this is increasingly our future.

~~~
jerf
"Previous major wildfires have been sparked by: mower blades, rims of flat
tires sparking on pavement, catalytic converters parked over dry grass, sparks
from a hammer. And electrical equipment."

Honestly, at that point, you have a fire, it's just not burning yet. The idea
that we can prevent fires from happening by preventing _all sources of
ignition_ in hundreds and hundreds of square miles is completely absurd. Even
though Man is responsible for a lot of ignition, he's not responsible for all
of them. Even if you completely removed civilization, it's still going to be a
fire.

I don't have a solution, or any good news here. Best thing I can think of at
this point is spending a shit ton of money and creating some _very large_ fire
breaks around cities and then burning on purpose, but California probably
can't do that either. By the time the eminent domain lawsuits and
counterlawsuits happened, the environmental review happens ("we plan on
killing lots of things, and then we're going to set the rest of the stuff we
didn't kill on fire" isn't exactly going to sail through the review process),
and everyone gets their beaks wetted, it'll just end up being a giant waste of
money that gets ended with the fires occur anyhow. And the fire breaks would
have to be _huge_ ; we're probably measuring the necessary widths with miles
fairly reasonably. (Possibly <1 mile, but certainly multiple tenths of a
mile.) And the _liability_. Nobody sane would take that job.

~~~
rsync
"Even though Man is responsible for a lot of ignition, he's not responsible
for all of them. Even if you completely removed civilization, it's still going
to be a fire."

Actually, other than a one-in-a-billion naturally occurring compost pile that,
by chance, falls into place and reaches burning temperature, internally, the
only natural source of wildland fire ignition is lightning.

Which is interesting because in many parts of coastal
Marin/Sonoma/Mendocino/Napa counties, there is, essentially, no lightning. I
have lived in Marin for ten years and have seen lightning exactly one time -
and that was during the rainy season when ignition would have very low
consequence.

Wildland fires in the north bay / Sac Delta / Wine Country are ignited by
people ...

~~~
jerf
My core point is that if your "fire prevention" plan is to drive the number of
ignition points to zero, you don't have a fire prevention plan, because even
the impossible isn't going to be enough. It's not a sensible answer, and it's
not really sensible to blame the fires on the individual ignition events.

Or, to put it another way, when we set off an explosive, the explosion isn't
really "caused" by the electrical spark; the unusual thing that happened that
primarily caused the detonation is the _collection of a lot of explosives in
one place_. Explosives experts are careful around _any_ concentration of
explosives, because that's the _real_ cause. By contrast you can play with the
electrical detonation system in isolation all day long and at most you'll
shock yourself a bit, and that only with extreme carelessness. The _primary_
cause of these fires is the accumulation of huge amounts of easily-burnable
material, not which of the thousands+ of ignition events was the unlucky one
to set it off.

------
delfinom
PG&E is being turned into a witch to hang on the stake. But people are
seriously completely missing the real problem. California is a gigantic
tinderbox of mismanaged forests, tons of dead and dry material laying around
and with climate change, shit is even drier. California is going to catch fire
whether the power is on or not. A fucking car trailer started one of the major
fires last year. There's at least a decade of completely piss poor forest
management responsible without controlled burns and fire breaks to plan for
the _naturally destined to occur forest fires_.

~~~
dragonwriter
> PG&E is being turned into a witch to hang on the stake.

Are you saying that they didn't neglect preventive maintenance while returning
billions to shareholders in dividends?

> California is going to catch fire whether the power is on or not.

That California is going to—as it always has—havr fires, including major ones,
with or without utility mismanagement is not the issue in dispute. PG&E isn't
being blamed for that.

PG&E is being blamed for the degree to which it's failure to maintain it's
infrastructure while returning profits to it's investors has contributed to
the amount of fire damage. And, yes, climate and other factors which increase
overall for risk are a multiplier on that, but if the hadn't been deferrring
maintenance for years, that would be a multiplier on zero.

> There's at least a decade of completely piss poor forest management
> responsible

That's hardly the reason for the fires that aren't forest fires.

~~~
rayiner
> Are you saying that they didn't neglect preventive maintenance while
> returning billions to shareholders in dividends?

While that’s literally true, it falsely implies that the former is related to
the latter.

See:
[https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Co...](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/About_Us/Organization/Divisions/Policy_and_Planning/PPD_Work/PPD_Work_Products_\(2014_forward\)/PPD%20General%20Rate%20Case%20Manual.pdf)
(page 18)

“The CPUC sets rates according to the following formula:

Revenue Requirements = O&M + Taxes + Depreciation + Rate Base * r - OR

Where: O&M = normal business expenses for running a utility company,

Taxes = Federal, state and local taxes,

Depreciation = accumulated depreciation of plants used to produce and deliver
the utility’s product,

Rate Base = net value of plant in service plus working capital, r = rate of
return on invested capital, and

OR = other operating revenue.”

When you pay $100 on your electric bill, part of that goes to operations and
maintenance. If PG&E cuts that line item, it’s profits don’t go up. It’s
profits are a separate line item calculated as a percentage of its invested
capital. That’s where the dividends come from. Indeed, if PG&E can enhance
fire safety through capital investments, such as by replacing worn out
equipment, and the CPUC lets them make those investments, then PG&E’s profit
would go up.

PG&E can’t pay out more in dividends by shortchanging operations and
maintenance.

~~~
joe_the_user
_PG &E can’t pay out more in dividends by shortchanging operations and
maintenance._

Not legally. But they have been charged with illegally doing this. The _judge_
at their bankruptcy hearing _described_ them as doing exactly that. Does PG&E
have to take your wallet at gunpoint before the idea they're thieves makes
sense?

I mean, PG&E was aware of necessary expenditures, suppressed knowledge of
those needed expenditures and instead continued to pay standard dividends[1].
Saying this isn't taking money from mainteninance and giving it to shareholder
is the worst kind of newspeak.

And sure, PG&E get the profits the PUC thinks they should get for whatever
needed expenditures they might make. BUT this has two wrinkles. A) It's hard
to argue you deserve a lot of money for doing what you should have done
earlier. B) This is just ordinary profits, a percentage of the expenditures
you make but just taking money that's lying around and giving it to share
holders is much more profitable, you don't need any more "upfront" here -
there's long terms consequences but in today's environment, management seldom
faces these consequences, just all the entities a given company deals with. Of
course, any company that says capital investment be damned, I'm giving the
whole flow to the stockholder will look more profitable tomorrow and even the
possibility of good future investment doesn't look as good as this tomorrow.
Unfortunately, we are now living in the "next week" of such decisions.

[1] Non-paywalled version of WSJ article: [https://www.marketscreener.com/PG-
E-CORPORATION-13946/news/P...](https://www.marketscreener.com/PG-E-
CORPORATION-13946/news/PG-E-Knew-for-Years-Its-Lines-Could-Spark-Wildfires-
And-Didn-t-Fix-Them-28878640/)

~~~
pcwalton
> The judge at their bankruptcy hearing described them as doing exactly that.

I went looking for a source here. You're right; Judge Alsup, overseeing the
bankruptcy hearings, had some pretty damning words for PG&E:
[https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-
stock-...](https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-stock-
dividends-instead-of-trimming-trees)

The arguments upthread pointing the finger at CPUC were somewhat persuasive to
me before seeing this, but after reading these words from Alsup—a reasonable
judge from what I've seen of him—what the California politicians are saying
make a lot more sense to me. Sounds like PG&E does need to shoulder a good
deal of the blame here.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You're right; Judge Alsup, overseeing the bankruptcy hearings,

As described in the article you cite, Alsup is overseeing their criminal
probation resulting from their multiple felony convictions for the San Bruno
gas explosion in 2010, not the bankruptcy case.

Dennis Montali is the judge in the bankruptcy case, see, e.g.,
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/business/energy-
environme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/business/energy-
environment/pge-bankruptcy.html)

~~~
pcwalton
You're right. Thanks for the correction.

------
jnwatson
I happen to be vacationing in Northern CA this week. We drove up the coast on
Hwy 1 then 101 from Oakland to Crescent City. After we left Oakland, we saw no
public power for 250 miles. Just a handful of places were open with
generators.

There was 1 open gas station for all of Hwy 1. We waited in line an hour.

The economic impact of this event is mind boggling.

~~~
zaroth
They should hold PG&E liable for that! </s>

------
RachelF
I'm not from the USA, is my understanding of this correct?

The power utility is liable for fires caused if a branch blows into its power
lines during high winds. So the power utility has chosen to turn off the power
in high winds?

~~~
kuschku
The intended consequence would have been for the company to cut vegetation
around its lines so this can't happen, but apparently turning off power is
more profitable.

~~~
Shivetya
they only have nearly twenty thousand miles of high tension power lines to
look out after, how hard can that be /s?

then throw in a hundred thousand miles of everything else.

problems look simple until scale is understood. the real truth here is PG&E is
effectively a state run corporation, they are so heavily regulated and managed
by the state that the only "corporate" part of them is the investors who buy
into these state regulated utilities in hopes of safe returns.

so in effect, the real guilty party here is the state government but the
illusion must be kept in place that they are instead the fixers.

~~~
donkeyd
I feel like this might, in part, also be caused by the hate for taxes in the
US. The goal seems to be lowering taxes as much as possible until only the
bare minimum is left. Proactively maintaining public land is not something
people deem important (until it's too late) so that's an easy thing to skip.
'Adopt a highway' is a perfect example of something that, in my opinion,
should be taken care of through taxes, but is now the responsibility of good
Samaritans.

Now this is what it looks like from far away in Europe and I might be
completely wrong.

~~~
jdhn
Saying that California is a low tax state is completely wrong. The state is
known for high taxes even when compared to other liberal states in the US.

~~~
tstrimple
This is misleading due to how states structure their tax code. California has
a high top marginal rate, but its progressive taxation system leads to many of
the middle class and under paying lower taxes than in other states. I live in
Iowa, for example, and the top marginal tax rate is 8.9% for all income earned
over $72k. The top marginal rate in California is 13.3%, but only applies to
income over $1MM. A couple making $80k in California will pay about $2k
(effective 2.52%) in income taxes, while the same couple in Iowa will pay
$3,976 (effective 4.97%). You can't just compare tax rates by comparing the
top marginal rate. You've got to look at how they actually impact people.

~~~
mikestew
As if that's not complicated enough, throw in the 10% CA sales tax versus 7%
in Iowa. And property tax. Prop 13, Prop 8(?), et. al., can make a
considerable difference, as I understand it. Props or not, the total is likely
to be higher just because housing is much more expensive in CA. 20% of 200,000
is a lot less than 10% of 1MM.

But in the end, as a WA resident who has given serious consideration to moving
to CA and has done this math a few different ways, my gut has a hard time
believing Iowa's overall tax burden is comparable to California's. Regardless,
maybe it's true or maybe it's not, but is an extra $10,000 in taxes what's
_really_ keeping you from picking up and moving? I posit that for most on HN,
no, it's a lot of other factors like housing and traffic.

But to the topic at hand, others have pointed out that PG&E is financed by
rate payers, not taxes. And CA has some pretty high electric rates. So why are
the forests catching on fire?

------
kordlessagain
During the first wave of outages for winds up North, PG&E shut off Moraga's
power. We had very little winds aloft, but a few hours into the outage, some
idiot started a fire with a vape (that's the story) which caused a mini
evacuation from our neighborhood at 3AM....IN THE DARK.

Today, while Orinda and Lafayette had no power, we did. Extremely windy today!

The reason our outages are backwards appears to be due to the fact we're a
tiny branch off a main line that runs well North of here. They can't turn us
down unless they turn all those people down as well.

By my guess our chances of fire are pretty were pretty much a guarantee from
this whole thing.

Thanks PG&E.

~~~
FooHentai
Right, but it'd be a fire that PG&E aren't responsible for starting. This is
the outcome of threatening to enforce responsibility on PG&E for fires caused
by their lines.

Not to say this is the way it _had_ to go, the alternative I see a lot of
people proposing is that some level of additional investment in lines
maintenance/clearing would have allowed PG&E to safely continue supplying
power through the dry season. What I don't see there though is any
consideration as to whether that made financial sense for the company.

Given that anything other than a naive view of the world tells us that a
private corporation's focus will be it's liabilities and bottom line, it's
hard to see (admittedly from the huge distance at which I stand) what other
way this could have gone.

------
danielfoster
A major part of the issue here is that although PQ&E is a private company,
they're heavily regulated by the state. Price controls plus a political
mandate to invest in green industry has left it with few resources for
maintaining existing infrastructure.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Price controls plus a political mandate to invest in green industry has left
> it with few resources for maintaining existing infrastructure.

But, until their long failure to invest in required maintenance started
manifesting in massive liabilities for fires in 2017, plenty of money to
return $billions to shareholders in dividends; clearly, in your understanding,
those funds weren't a fungible resource that could have instead been invested
in maintenance.

(An understanding not shared by the federal judge overseeing their criminal
probation for their felony conviction in the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion,
who—in finding their actions leading to the 2017 and 2018 fires to be a
violation of that probation—placed the blame for the fires squarely on PG&E’s
decision to, for years, prioritize dividends over required maintenance.)

~~~
hcurtiss
Those dividends are necessary to raise the private capital necessary to run
PG&E. It's not a charity, and it's certainly not a "market." It's a state-
sponsored monopoly. The only other ways to fund it are increased energy prices
or tax dollars.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Those dividends are necessary to raise the private capital necessary to run
> PG&E.

 _Private_ capital is only required to have someone to return dividends to.

> It's not a charity

Yes, exactly, because it's a for profit institution, it is structurally
incentivized to return profits to investors.

> It's a state-sponsored monopoly.

Which makes it being a private, profit-making enterprise nonsensical, exactly.

~~~
TheHypnotist
You mention profit a lot, but do you know how a utility earns money? Rate
payer might be the obvious answer, but there is another.

Capital projects, investments into itself that make the company tick. New
plants, improve infrastructure (down to the application server). See:
[https://blog.aee.net/how-do-electric-utilities-make-
money](https://blog.aee.net/how-do-electric-utilities-make-money)

Now, that doesn't excuse them because its entirely possible they did not
invest wisely. But simply blaming "profit" is hand wavy anti-corporate speak,
which doesn't necessarily explain what is happening.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You mention profit a lot, but do you know how a utility earns money? Rate
> payer might be the obvious answer, but there is another.

No, there isn't.

> Capital projects, investments into itself that make the company tick.

That doesn't make money, it reduces operating expenses and increases operating
margins at the same rates. The money still comes from ratepayers. And public
entities reduce operating expenses the same way, the benefits (after paying
for any debt financing) just go to taxpayers, rather than private investors.

~~~
TheHypnotist
I said earn money. But I phrased it poorly, so i'll explain further with what
I know. I also assume we're still talking about regulated utilities.

Capital project costs (along with other fixed costs) generally get passed
through to rate payers + an approved ROR by the public utility board.
Operating expenses cut into this. Capital project costs do not necessarily
reduce operation expenses directly.

------
maximente
cali has added 10 million people since 1990 but 30% of PG&E's infrastructure
is over a century old.

also in the 1990s, deregulation allowed the valuable parts of various
electricity companies to be sold off in a classic private equity vulture move,
leaving the utilities basically holding the bag on largely crufty shells. the
governor said it all:

> Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation system would need
> fixing by "the next governor".

it's hard to imagine this ending well. i would advocate for regulatory
enforcement via state attorney general election as the most direct /potential/
route for changing things. obviously jailing executives would be more
effective, but despite way more deaths than boeing, that seems unlikely.

~~~
danans
> the governor said it all:

> Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation...

For anyone who may be less familiar with 90s CA politics, this refers to then
governor Pete Wilson (R) who was responsible for the utility deregulation
which then became an albatross around his successors' necks.

~~~
ars
Lots of states have deregulated. but other states have not had the experience
of California.

What makes California different that deregulation failed so badly?

~~~
roenxi
"Deregulation" is a term that doesn't convey much information. In Australia we
'deregulated' the power industry. That means that we swapped shareholders in
for government collecting the profit and removed some of the regulations.

The problem is that the remaining regulations created a hugely complicated
market and _still_ involved a lot of price controls for arbitrary things. Eg,
"network charges component of retail electricity prices is set ... by the
Australian Energy Regulator ... based on ...operational and maintenance
expenditure" [0]. So we have an unregulated market where the cost of
electricity goes crazy because wholesalers overspend on grid maintenance and
get no-risk profit.

I don't know how California tried to do it, but in Australia deregulation
didn't mean 'try and set prices using a market'. That was too hard and they
didn't manage to set up a system that worked. It meant 'try and redirect
profit from government to private enterprise'. Not surprisingly, the whole
system is a disaster and worse than if they hadn't ever tried. I still think
an actual free-market system would have worked but the design might be too
delicate to run the political gauntlet and get legislated.

[0] [https://www.rba.gov.au/information/foi/disclosure-
log/pdf/10...](https://www.rba.gov.au/information/foi/disclosure-
log/pdf/101115.pdf) \- I think I'm characterising the situation fairly but
rely heavily on general knowledge.

------
ars
Here is an example: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-
wildfire/as-wi...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-wildfire/as-
wildfire-rages-in-los-angeles-city-tells-wealthy-to-warn-staff-of-dangers-
idUSKBN1X813H)

A branch broke and landed on a power line, sparking a fire.

I'm curious what PG&E could do different, it sounds like the tree wasn't even
very close to the power line, but wind pushed it.

Turning off power like this during wind-storms might be the permanent new
normal.

~~~
r00fus
Underground the power distribution like in France.

It’s expensive but probably less costly in the long run.

~~~
ars
Wouldn't that cost something like $1 trillion to do for the entire state?

Math: 155147 miles * $750/foot

And an article
[https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2019/10/11/...](https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2019/10/11/cost-
to-bury-california-fire-prone-power-lines-why-not/3937653002/) confirming it's
pretty much out of reach. $15,000 per household estimate (and 1,000 years!!).

~~~
dmlittle
You wouldn't necessarily have to do the entire state but rather start doing
this in high-risk places first.

~~~
misterprime
Good point. Is it also true that high risk places (forest/rural) are probably
cheaper and easier to install underground than low risk places (urban)?

~~~
dredmorbius
A lot of long-distance, high-voltage transmission crosses what's effectively
wilderness. You've got issues of unstable slopes, earthquake faults, flooding,
and ground-current losses (a big problem with undergrounded power).

And that's before you look at getting crews in place.

Then there's the question of monitoring, servicing, and repair after
undergrounding.

It's definitely an option. But not a cheap or universally applicable one.

------
linusnext
Given that we lost cell coverage as well as power. Really regretting the Tesla
after 3 days without power.

~~~
johndubchak
I think this point needs to be highlighted here:

No power = no cell coverage

Landlines are a thing of the past and for the most part that means that people
lack the ability to call for help beyond your basic 911 service.

So we’ve effectively tied two pieces of critical infrastructure together and
made one dependent upon the other.

That needs to be addressed and resolved.

~~~
rrss
It is pretty common for cell towers to have backup power. Not all of them do,
but many.

~~~
mikestew
I'm assuming backup power is a diesel generator, though, right? My experience
with long-term WA outages is that the diesel runs out in a few days, and no
one comes to refill it.

Amateur radio license: if my wife can pass the test, anyone on HN ought to be
able to.

~~~
dredmorbius
You'll want to have a refueling SLA on that generator.

The risk profile as of a month or so ago now includes short-notice extended
multiple-day intentional power-outs from the utility service itself.

------
supahfly_remix
Could this disaster be turned into an opportunity? Could it spur decentralized
approached to energy creation, such as solar with a power wall?

California has so many inventive people and access to capital. Maybe this
could be the impetus that would let them and us kick the hydrocarbon habit.

~~~
takanori
This was my thought as well. Nothing like a crisis to spur invention. I did
the math on a power wall. It’s too expensive to be feasible. Two units with
installation cost $20K. That doesn’t include the solar panels required to keep
it charged. You can get a gas generator with similar capacity for $5K. Not to
mention gas is typically readily available.

~~~
hcurtiss
Exactly right. I got a Harbor Freight generator, installed a natural gas
carburetor and plumbed in a quick release valve on our outside natural gas
line. It will run the whole house, including the gas furnace and water heater.
I love the idea of battery backup for our solar panels, but it's super
expensive, and the payoff is so distant the NPV approaches zero.

~~~
ppf
Wonderful. What would energy usage and air pollution look like if everyone did
this? Decentralized energy production = horribly inefficient.

~~~
hcurtiss
Totally agreed. This is for emergency use. I suppose sitting in the dark is
better for the planet, but I would really rather my freezer not spoil.

~~~
ppf
Indeed. I hope the climate activists are taking this opportunity to learn
about human behaviour once a situation is deemed an emergency - everyone will
do whatever it takes, whether it's run a cheap (and, I assume, highly
polluting) ICE generator, or burn wood in an open fire, to keep their house
warm and food on the table.

------
j79
> It also includes families and individuals who live paycheck to paycheck and
> can barely afford the groceries currently in their fridge, which will likely
> spoil.

In addition to the financial burden for these families, there's also the
potential health impacts of eating spoiled food. Personally, I was hesitant to
waste food that my wife had just purchased a few days prior. My stomach
disagreed with that decision, and I spent most of my Sunday sitting in the
bathroom with no power or cell service.

We're now dealing with the question of WHEN to replenish our food. I've also
considered purchasing a generator for just powering the fridge. But, this is
all new and any advice would be greatly appreciated.

~~~
throw0101a
> _But, this is all new and any advice would be greatly appreciated._

This video shows the three main ways to legally / safely connect a generator:

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKwBBesUKA8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKwBBesUKA8)

Method 1 is the simplest and involves running an extension cord to the
appliance(s) you want powered; or a power bar if you want multiple.

Method 3 is the most expensive, and it involves buying a very big generator to
power the whole house, making sure there is a mechanism that prevents power
back-feeding into the grid.

Method 2 is probably what you may want to look into. You purchase a
small/medium generator as well as an electrical sub-panel. You then re-wire
any appliances to the sub-panel. When the power goes out, you change the sub-
panel's incoming feed from the main panel to the generator, which will then
power your pre-selected appliances.

A potato-quality video illustrating Method 2:

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbBt8hv8mQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbBt8hv8mQ)

~~~
mikestew
_Method 1 is the simplest and involves running an extension cord to the
appliance(s) you want powered; or a power bar if you want multiple._

Should one take this route, and you want to run some high-wattage stuff like a
refrigerator, microwave, or space heater, remember to use the thickest cord
you can find if it runs any length. Harbor Freight will sell you 50' of 12
gauge extension cord for cheap. Use that thin little thing you use to plug the
shop light into, and it'll get warm fast.

------
imglorp
> every mile of power line that’s been shut off needs to be inspected
> visually, by foot or vehicle or air. [...] The work can’t be done in the
> dark.

Can a sense current be run through the idle lines, to detect ground faults
before going back to full power?

~~~
Breefield
My understanding is that these detection signals can cause fires themselves,
as they need to be high enough voltage to traverse the entire length of the
line—and as such can spark off said faults and cause fires...

------
collsni
I'm not sure what you expected, holding a company liable. Expect it to reduce
its own liability.

~~~
Angostura
The should also be liable for failure to deliver power. In the UK this
triggers substantial compensation.

~~~
dehrmann
Then expect rates to go up 15% in risky areas. You can't have the current
rates, 99.99% reliable power, and fire prevention in the near term.

------
BubRoss
The 'new kind of disaster' is just what you would expect from no electricity -
dialysis, medicine in general, poor people having their remaining food spoil,
etc. Saved you a click.

~~~
newguy1234
Another issue I saw on the news was that firefighters couldn't fight a fire
because the water pressure was too low. Turns out the water utility lost power
and didn't have any backup power. They couldn't pump water from the wells.

~~~
dredmorbius
Most regions have some sort of above-grade water tanks. Not the water towers
you'll find in the plains states, but tanks built upslope of served areas.
Though these are filled by powered pumps, they'll supply enormous amounts of
water even after power is cut.

In San Francisco there are numerous reservoirs, virtually all decked over.
Four of the highest are located near Twin Peaks, the highest point in the
city:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sutro+Reservoir,+San+Franc...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sutro+Reservoir,+San+Francisco,+CA+94131/@37.7520825,-122.455615,15z/data=!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sreservoir!3m1!1s0x808f7dfb3135dc73:0x24f109be56aaf920)

~~~
code_duck
I guess the problem is for places that don't have that.

~~~
dredmorbius
You'd be hard-pressed to find such in California, is my general point. I'd be
interested in specific citations of exceptions to the rule.

------
acadien
Time to start burying the powerlines fellow Californians.

~~~
dgfdsgdsgv
Do you have any idea how expensive that is?

~~~
sagichmal
Probably a lot less expensive than multiple major fires per year + rolling
multi-day blackouts for millions of households.

------
generalpass
What if the reason PG&E is turning off the power is not because they are
concerned about their lines starting fires, but that they are being
scapegoated by the state of California for damage resulting from poor public
policy relating to fire dangers?

The predictions of a future with large amounts of fires go back quite a ways,
and there is some evidence to suggest that native Indians took measures to
limit the spread of wildfires. Even if it is assumed that PG&E equipment
starts a fire, the exceptional damage caused by the fire is the result of the
poor management policies.

I've drifted around on my opinions on this whole matter, but currently I find
that PG&E is working to steer clear of lawsuits, nothing else.

------
m3kw9
Building powerlines that can cause fires if something this easy can cause it
shouldn’t be legal. Would you be ok with having your electronic devices set on
fire because you dropped it or something easy?

------
Bostonian
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/revolutionary-
california-115723...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/revolutionary-
california-11572389585) Revolutionary California Wall Street Journal ^ |
October 29, 2019 | Holman W. Jenkins

...

The wildfire crisis is ultimately the product of a state politics controlled
by interest groups whose agenda has drifted out of any cognizable relationship
with the daily well-being of the state’s average citizen.

Because California accounts for less than 1% of global emissions, nothing it
does will make a difference to climate, but its ratepayers shell out billions
for wind and solar that might be better spent on fireproofing. A generation of
ill-judged environmental activism has all but ended forest management in favor
of letting dead trees and underbrush build up because it’s more “natural.” At
the same time, residents resist any natural or planned fires that would
consume this tinder before it gives rise to conflagrations like those now
menacing Los Angeles and San Francisco.

An activist state Supreme Court imposed on utilities responsibility for any
wildfires started by their equipment regardless of negligence. At the same
time, state policy obliges them to extend their networks to support housing
developments in areas the state designates as “very high fire risk.”

California’s activist one-party government, with its penchant for pretending
to be a national government in relation to the hot-button issues of the left,
is where all these roads end. Elites subsidize electric cars for themselves
while promoting zoning that forces lower-income workers to commute three hours
to a job or live in their cars. PG&E can’t keep trees off its power lines but
can supply exact numbers for how many LGBTQ workers it employs.

------
takanori
How does routing work in these power lines? Is it similar to a network where
you can route around problematic hubs? So if there is a line going through 4
miles of trees, you can just turn that part off... not the whole county?

~~~
etimberg
You can turn off a line if you have capacity elsewhere. The problem is that as
the current increases in a line the temperature of the line increases. This
causes thermal expansion and if not well managed, a line can sag too low and
have to be turned off. This was one of the causes of the 2003 northeast
blackout.

The other option is to have local generation that can supply local load but
that is still quite hard to do with renewables.

~~~
takanori
That makes sense. This is a century old problem. Are there no viable technical
solutions?

~~~
themaninthedark
You could add more generators over an area to make grid more self sustaining
but many people don't want power plants in their backyard and it is costly as
you are paying for generating capacity that you don't use(often)

------
blondie9x
Climate change is worsening the droughts that cause fires as well as the winds
that spread them. Turning off the electricity is one of the only ways until
are the transmission lines are buried. But it might be safe to say every
residence and apartment building etc should have a battery back up anyway and
renewable energy installed. If this were so grid electricity would be a moot
point and technically we would not be dependent on grid electricity.

~~~
p1mrx
Why would they install a battery backup, when a gasoline/diesel generator is
cheaper?

I see grid reliability as the cornerstone of fighting climate change. Who in
their right mind would replace their furnace with a heat pump, or buy an
electric vehicle, when doing so will likely leave them cold and immobile
multiple times per year?

We need a grid with _more_ capacity and _better_ reliability, if
decarbonization is ever going to work.

~~~
blondie9x
Battery backup with solar generator would more than be enough for most homes
and residences in California.

~~~
p1mrx
I don't think rooftop solar can supply enough energy to heat a home and charge
a car (things that currently require fossil fuels.) We're talking tens of
kilowatts.

------
noodlesUK
Surely at this point the state has emergency powers to nationalise PG&E and
seize control altogether. Why hasn’t that happened yet?

~~~
onetimemanytime
....and do what? Pay the bills for all the damage and keep starting new fires?
No easy answer, taxes will have to be raised by a lot

~~~
mschuster91
> No easy answer, taxes will have to be raised by a lot

The alternative to raising taxes is to cut bullshit government spending and
tax breaks for mega corporations, or enforcing taxes against the rich.

------
kbos87
Yeah, it’s really going to suck as we come to the collective realization that
the impact modern life has on the environment is going to encroach on - modern
life. PG&E’s actions are the leading edge of what will be a growing trend of
inconveniences. Demonizing them is living in denial. We are all culpable.

------
dawnerd
Don't see many people talking about the additional environmental impact this
is causing from people running generators nonstop.

PG&E should be buying everyone in their area solar panels and battery backups.
That'd help alleviate a lot of the problems - and probably be cheaper in the
long run.

~~~
dredmorbius
Most grid-tied home solar installations _cannot function without the grid_.
Depending on manufacturer and/or utility, you may simply not have the option
to install free-standing solar capacity.

That means generators are the only sustaining power option.

For those medically-dependent on electricity, this has been a massive factor,
with deaths reported as a consequence. Economic hardship and other impacts are
also very real.

Given the balance between this and the risk of tens of thousands made homeless
through repeats of events such as last year's Camp Fire in Paradise,
preemptive power cuts still seem defensible. But impacts really _must_ be
addressed.

------
tzm
Pre-emptive blackouts have now cost me over $1k.

------
jwilk
Archived copy without GDPR nag screen:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20191009215000/https://slate.com...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191009215000/https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-
power-outage-pge-fires-new-kind-of-disaster.html)

------
rayiner
The level of political demagoguery surrounding this is really shocking. Gavin
Newsom is blaming “dog eat dog capitalism” and “corporate greed” for the
wildfires: [https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-
wildfires/article/New...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-
wildfires/article/Newsom-PG-E-SoCal-utilities-undermined-14560015.php)

Of course, PG&E is the kind of regulated entity people like Newsom wish all
corporations were. Private investors put up the capital to build and maintain
the electric grid. The government, through the California Public Utility
Commission, tells them what to spend it on: [https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-
pge/company-information/regu...](https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-
information/regulation/general-rate-case/grc.page). The CPUC reviews PG&E’s
proposed expenditures and approves the resulting electric rates. The CPUC then
allows PG&E to set rates high enough to recover a 10% profit on that
expenditure.[1]

Under that regime, PG&E’s incentive is to spend _more money_ gold plating the
electric grid. The more it spends, the more profit it makes. The reason PG&E
didn’t spend more money on wild fire safety is because the CPUC is run by
political appointees and they have strong incentives to keep electric rates
low in the short term. (This is a common problem with rate regulated
utilities. They underinvest in infrastructure because voters demand low rates
for electric, water, etc.)

Now of course, California doesn’t have the money to build its own electric
grid. So Newsom is calling on Buffett to bail out PG&E. I.e. let different
private investors take in the risk and expense of the CPUC’s years of short
sighted behavior.

And, of course, this is the kind of thing that only happens in America, and
maybe some third world countries. Not because Europe doesn’t have investor
owned utilities. They are common. Some of the largest grid operators in
Germany are private companies. Rather, it seems to be the result of the unique
political dysfunction in the US. American politicians and their voters live in
a fantasy land where they can literally say the grass is blue and the sky is
green because that fits into their narratives about the world.

[1] That’s about what it works out to. It’s a more complicated rate return
calculation:
[https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/Ab...](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/About_Us/Organization/Divisions/Office_of_Governmental_Affairs/Legislation/2018/California%20Electric%20And%20Gas%20Utility%20Cost%20Report.pdf).

~~~
taurath
All this to say, it’s the governments fault for allowing PG&E to have the
incentives it does. And I’d agree with you to an extent, but the solution
being privatizing it and deregulating the power system is... maybe not the
best. Corporations almost always have the same incentive structure as what
you’re saying the CPUC has, short term profits over long term. The only
difference is that rates would be higher along with PG&Es profits, since
nobody would go in and build a second power grid and they’d have a de facto
monopoly.

~~~
rayiner
I’m not suggesting we deregulate the transmission grid. My point is that PG&E
_is_ heavily regulated, and the government should take responsibility for the
consequences of its regulatory choices. For decades, PG&E submitted detailed
rate cases to the CPUC saying; “here is what we plan to invest in, here is how
much it will cost, and here is what rates will have to be to pay for it.”
Given that PG&E would make _more money_ by investing in safety upgrades, the
only reason they wouldn’t have done it is because the CPUC pressured them to
forgo such investments to keep rates low. (That’s a common concern for rate
regulated monopolies: they have an incentive to “gold plate” the network
because they make more money the more they spend.)

The PG&E model works well in the rest of the world. It’s how the electric grid
works in the UK, and most of Germany. In France and Spain the electric grid is
operated by a for profit corporation, albeit one where the government is a
shareholder (majority stake in France, minority stake in Spain). Indeed, many
people espouse using the same model for broadband in the US.

That proven model is not working in California because the politics is
completely dysfunctional. There is zero accountability.

------
dredmorbius
Direct link to article:

[https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-power-
outage-p...](https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-power-outage-pge-
fires-new-kind-of-disaster.html)

~~~
dang
Ok, we've changed to that from
[https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1188870991390232582](https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1188870991390232582).
Thanks!

------
z92
The question is : How many fires are there in CA yearly? It's like 2000 to
4000 different fires that start at different places in the same season.

And how many of those were started because of PG&E? 2? 3?

But PG&E has to pay for every fire they cause, because they can. And now they
don't want to.

The consequence.

~~~
tapland
I don't really understand this. You are making claims about causes and effects
without having (ever?) read about california fires and why they are started?

Isn't that the bare minimum expected to even have an opinion, let alone engage
in a discussion about it?

~~~
orf
Not anymore, unfortunately.

