
PG&E Says It Could Impose Blackouts in California for a Decade - spking
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-ceo-says-it-could-impose-blackouts-in-california-for-a-decade-11571438206?mod=rsswn
======
greesil
There's a drinking joke in here somewhere.

My question is if it's cheaper to fire-proof everyone's house, or to have
everyone go and buy solar for their properties, or to just accept some people
and properties are going to burn in a fiery inferno from time to time.

A quick Google shows that there were $7B in insurance claims for the Camp
Fire. At $15K per install of solar, that's ~500k homes. Apparently fire-
proofing a house has similar costs. There are something like 7M homes in
California. Many of those are in urban areas, so let's say there are 2M in
fire-prone areas.

It actually seems worthwhile to just pay for the upgrades.

~~~
onetimemanytime
do not build in the middle of the forest. simple, really. Well, not that
simple since people spent their lifetime savings buying the land and building
but nothing else works. You probably need 500-1000 yards cleared forest to
avoid the fire (embers in the roof and all) and even then all the
infrastructure will be melted.

PG&E is trying to hold the state hostage. Want us to pay for fires? Fine,
we'll cut power to danger zones that weren't economically viable anyway.

~~~
nostrademons
It's 100 feet as long as you adopt smart building practices for the roof (use
tile, composition, or metal instead of wood shingles; cover all vents with
mesh; clear gutters and other accumulations of dead plant matter). Tile roofs
do not generally catch fire from embers.

[https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-
re...](https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get-
ready/defensible-space/)

~~~
onetimemanytime
100 feet or roughly 30.5 meters. Maybe, if you are in around the middle of
residential area, your house will escape. Meaning if your neighbor's tree or
house burns, it will not ignite yours--if you do all that's required. Next to
the forest? Not a chance. A little wind and you see how fast flames move.

Also in a community, not everyone (or maybe, very few) has a 100 feet room to
clear and maintain.

Edit: Even if you do have 100 feet to maintain, go on a two week vacation and
see how many leaves gather.

~~~
wahern
> Edit: Even if you do have 100 feet to maintain, go on a two week vacation
> and see how many leaves gather.

You don't need a 100-foot break to protect your house from burning leaves. The
100-foot break is to protect your house from the incinerating radiation of
torching trees.

You can technically even have trees within the 100-foot break. The goal is to
prevent a situation where individually burning trees accelerate combustion in
a feedback loop. If they're burning more slowly they're radiating less energy
and thus you don't need as much space to the house.

------
Aloha
This is the result of trying to hold the power company in total responsibility
for every fire for which it was the proximate cause.

While PG&E has been somewhat deficient in maintaining their network they have
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.

~~~
sliken
Well run power distribution do not start fires.

There are standards for how close tree limbs can be to a power line. PG&E
asked for money to meet those standards. PG&E accepted that money. Then PG&E
didn't meet those standards.

Sure acts of god, environmental changes, and other unusual issues start fires.
However California has been hot and dry periodically and the existing
standards provide good protection... it's just that PG&E is not meeting them.

~~~
Aloha
I don't actually agree - sudden equipment failures, protection failures, winds
blowing a tree over onto a 10kv feeder, etc.

Well run power systems start few fires, but its not zero fires.

------
jitl
It should be nationalized so they can fix the problem instead of optimizing
for bankruptcy liability or whatever.

~~~
bhl
Not sure how nationalization would help. PG&E has a state monopoly right? What
if we went in the opposite direction and allowed smaller companies in to start
competing, like what we have with ISPs?

~~~
rubyn00bie
You can vote out elected officials, it forces transparency, and also has the
bonus of a government multiplier[1], you can't do that with the C-levels of
PG&E and a private company.

Additionally, and I think this is non-debatable in the USA (though I'm up for
debate, and to be wrong), C-levels have their primary and sole obligation to
shareholders. When push comes to shove, and tough decisions need to be made,
in the USA it is always in the interest of shareholders unless mandated by the
government. Sometimes better businesses push for that mandate, so they can
remain competitive and not be flaming piles of shit unable to compete... [2].

PG&E executives, right now, can use this (shareholder returns) as disguise for
moral ineptitude in their social circles allowing them to escape ridicule as
monsters.

No amount of competition will fix these problems and incentivize the correct
behaviour for a _utility_ as long as they're obligated to return dividends
before moral decency.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier#United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier#United_States_of_America)

[2] This is also a vector for abuse by monopolies and oligopolies; where, they
lobby for regulation which creates a barrier to entry (in the market)
insurmountable to new organizations and institutions.

~~~
oldgradstudent
> Additionally, and I think this is non-debatable in the USA (though I'm up
> for debate, and to be wrong), C-levels have their primary and sole
> obligation to shareholders.

No. Shareholders have a residual claim. Corporations have to obey the law, pay
their debts, and pay their other obligations first. Shareholders may only
claim from what remains.

~~~
anoncake
Management isn't the corporation.

------
simonblack
Why does the word "ENRON" keep flashing on and off in my head?

Fake energy shortages was why Enron was able to charge exorbitant prices for
electricity. You'd think that Americans would have that seared into their
brains.

~~~
millstone
The Enron rolling blackouts were manufactured arbitrage bookkeeping nonsense,
but there was nothing fake about the Camp Fire smoke that covered the Bay
Area. It was horrifying.

------
anonu
So you blame a private company for sparking a wildfire which isn't really
under their control. What do you expect them to do?

~~~
ajross
PG&E equipment is believed to have started multiple fires, including the Camp
fire. I don't understand your usage of "under their control".

~~~
adrianmonk
They were the proximate cause but not the ultimate cause. When the state is
that dry, something is going to start a fire sooner or later, and when it
does, it's going to be bad.

They are basically being penalized for being the straw that broke the camel's
back.

Probably better maintenance would have helped some, but it's not like they
bear all the blame for the destruction caused by the fire.

~~~
yokaze
I would accept that argument if it happened once, but alas it didn't.

While anyone can start a wildfire, they are a large actor, which causes them.
They make profit and could invest money to reduce their part in it, but as
long that is an external cost, there is no economic motivation. That's not
penalisation, it's economics.

~~~
Felz
I think implicit in PG&E's decision to neglect maintenance was that they
weren't allowed to raise rates and it wouldn't actually be very economical to
do maintenance to reduce wildfire risks, so shareholders preferred profits
were returned to them rather than reinvestment into e.g. maintenance. So
adding the "motivation" to reduce wildfires might've made them more likely.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/cTjU7](http://archive.is/cTjU7)

------
pbreit
I never quite understood what the purpose of the blacking out was?

~~~
Baeocystin
Reduction of legal liability in case of fire.

~~~
nickodell
Or, less cynically, reduction of the number of fires.

~~~
nullc
PG&E posted pictures of quite a few down lines in areas they cut power to.
It's pretty credible that that blackouts actually prevented fires.

~~~
prewett
[https://kfbk.iheart.com/featured/sacramentos-latest-
news/con...](https://kfbk.iheart.com/featured/sacramentos-latest-
news/content/2019-10-16-pge-issues-pictures-of-trees-on-power-lines-to-prove-
outage-was-justified/)

Brief article, has link to a PDF with 12 actual pictures in various counties.

------
CameronNemo
Hit the paywall.

~~~
meritt
[http://archive.is/ra9UL](http://archive.is/ra9UL)

~~~
CameronNemo
DNS

------
sfblah
California has real livability problems even for wealthy tech workers. The
traffic has become unbearable thanks to Waze routing everyone all over surface
streets, mass transit changes of any kind reliably take 10 years minimum to
implement. Heck even closing Market St to cars is going to take more than 5
years for some reason. This is just icing on the cake. It’s really time to
think seriously about moving.

~~~
bksenior
Who are you talking to?

~~~
rhacker
Not them, but everyone in CA, as stated in their post??

