
Do California’s Blackouts Make Sense? - Bostonian
https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-californias-blackouts-make-sense-11570832232?mod=rsswn
======
ransom1538
Most of California is a tinderbox. In late summer, when you walk in brush or
in the woods, the ground 'cracks' as you walk - from dry sticks and pine
needles. California burns every year. Fires have started from car exhaust
pipes, people dropping a cigarette, knocking over a camping gas stove, etc.
The solution isn't to ban "camping gas stoves" \- the solution is to have fire
breaks BEFORE the fire. Fires get out of control in California because of it's
massive size and fuel source. Why do people blame PG&E? Would we all feel
better if it was a kid playing with a magnifying glass? The solution is to
destroy the main electrical company? We would all be happier if they were
government owned electrical lines that caused the fire? I don't follow the
logic.

I am sure PG&E will enjoy slashing all their current (and past??) employee
retirement benefits. Who wins here?

~~~
enraged_camel
I learned the other day that the reason California is so prone to massive
fires is because they do not allow fires to occur naturally, and instead do a
lot of fire prevention work. Over time, ironically, this results in a ton of
dead, dried vegetation accumulating.

The general consensus among experts seems to be that nature needs a regular
“release” for a lot of stuff, otherwise “pressure” builds up and results in
what we humans consider disasters.

~~~
mensetmanusman
This is true, and ironically the more money that is invested in fire fighting,
the more vegetation is allowed to build up for a future fire until the size
overwhelms the current capital investment for firefighting. This funding
policy guarantees larger and larger fires.

Meanwhile, no one is seriously discussing this issue, and everyone is blaming
it on climate change, which will only make the voters of California feel
hopeless, and therefore do nothing about it.

~~~
sagarm
I have passed controlled burns in the Sierras before, so it cannot be
categorically true that California works to prevent all fires.

Do you have a citation for this claim?

------
H8crilA
The real question is whether a monopoly utility company should be a private
for-profit effort. Like what's the benefit here. You can't rely on the usual
survival-of-the-fittest quality proposition because those are monopolies.

~~~
rayiner
The benefit is that for profit companies have incentives for quality that
public entities do not. In New York, at least ConEd gets you reliable power.
The New York subway by contrast is literally struggling to hit 70% on time
performance.

It’s a simple calculation. Would you want your local (almost certainly public)
transit operator to take over your electric service? I’d suspect in the vast
majority of places, the answer would be no.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> The New York subway by contrast is literally struggling to hit 70% on time
> performance.

Because politicians cut its budget while requiring 24/7 operation, not because
the subway operator doesn't have ~profit motive~

~~~
harryh
The MTA is currently in the process of spending 5 billion dollars on ~70
elevators. The inefficiency (and, frankly, corruption) of the agency is
staggering.

The organization's problems have very very little to do with budget
constraints.

~~~
throw0101a
And yet Berlin, Paris, and Copenhagen are all able to build similar
infrastructure for much less:

* [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/ne...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2)

Chicago seems to be doing okay, or at least much better than NYC:

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/nyregion/chicago-l-train-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/nyregion/chicago-l-train-mta-subway.html)

The problems of the MTA are unique to the MTA itself (AFAICT), and should not
necessarily be extrapolated to other places.

------
reddog
I am gobsmacked that the state of California is allowing PG&E to downgrade
their power infrastructure to near third world status.

Next time there's an Amazon HQ2 type competition between regions look for
killer bullet points like "Texas: at least we have electricity!"

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
While I see lots of problems with PG&E, the fact that they can basically face
unlimited liability from something that is nowhere near entirely their fault
(i.e. PG&E may be responsible for their equipment but the fact that climate
change means one small spark is more likely to cause billions in damages and
widespread destruction isn't PG&E's fault) means the system is broken.

This is a case where normal tort liability makes for a failed system. Would be
much better if there was a regulated system describing what PG&E is
responsible for, and for building up a reserve for the fires that are
inevitable.

~~~
Someone1234
So PG&E get to make unlimited profits but the public has to eat the cost of
their liabilities?

They should just be a public utility in that case. Since someone is going to
wind up eating the costs, and if not PG&E, then the public/taxpayer. Therefore
may have well cut out the profit inefficiency and use that money to maintain
their equipment correctly (or pay for damages).

Private entities running natural monopolies never made sense to me anyway.
PG&E don't even pretend to do it well.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> So PG&E get to make unlimited profits but the public has to eat the cost of
> their liabilities?

"Unlimited profits"?? PG&E filed for bankruptcy this year, and filed in 2001.
All electricity rates need to be approved California Public Utilities
Commission.

I agree, this weird mix of private ownership where everything needs to be
approved by govt is basically the worst of all possible worlds (see also
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), but it's not PG&E's fault alone that the system
is so fucked. California has basically set up a regulatory regime where stable
electricity generation is not viable.

------
robertcope
When you get fined $30 billion dollars for a fire, yes, it makes sense.

~~~
ecf
When you neglect maintenance and cry fowl when a state wants to charge for
your negligence.

~~~
mdorazio
There’s a difference between getting fined for lax maintenance and “you’re
bankrupt now”. To put this in software terms it’s equivalent to if you miss
one bug, anywhere in your code you post on GitHub, and the government comes
and takes your house. Because that’s about how easy it is to accidentally
start fires in California in the dry season. How much code do you think you
would publish in that case?

~~~
CrazyStat
This except the code you put on GitHub was part of a billion dollar contract
that specifically required static code analysis to catch bugs because it was
going to be used in life or death situations, and then a bunch of people died
because you got lazy and didn't do the static code analysis.

~~~
DuskStar
But, even if you _had_ done the static code analysis, you still would have
been liable for any bugs that were missed. There is no level of diligence that
would have released PG&E from liability.

------
dap
What a disappointing and disingenuous piece. To take an egregious example, the
article points out that 90% of fires aren’t caused by electrical equipment,
but fails to mention that the most destructive ones have been.

As for the idea of homeowners in fire prone regions shouldering all of the
risk, is that reasonable when the frequency and magnitude of the fires appears
to be changing so significantly? (I’m not sure, but I think areas of risk have
also expanded significantly.). There are also huge externalities: it’s not
just homeowners’ problem when smoke blankets regions housing millions of
people hundreds of miles away from the fire.

~~~
sjg007
Yes. We should have zoning requirements for fire resistant construction and
have minimum setbacks from tree lines etc... whatever makes sense.

------
maliker
The rest of the electric utility industry sees California as a troubled place
ever since the days of rolling blackouts from Enron's market manipulation. I'm
not sure if it's the regulatory environment or the market or utility
management or what, but they've had a lot of problems.

It will also be interesting to see how California deals with blackouts as they
pursue their renewable energy targets. The average day with renewables is not
a problem, but once we get to a majority renewable grid and there's a multi-
day stretch of low solar and wind output, it will be interesting to see
whether they can deploy enough gas, storage and conservation to cover the
demand. ERCOT (Texas) almost had blackouts this summer when low wind and high
demand led to a $90/kWh energy price.

Blackouts aren't the end of the world, but more of them will force us to
deploy backup power much more aggressively than we do now.

------
ctdonath
Maybe PG&E should just declare bankruptcy, decommission equipment, gather up
the power lines, and sell it all as scrap.

PG&E would no longer be an issue, and everyone would have an incentive to
install home solar or other locally renewable energy sources. ... maybe that’s
the plan.

~~~
jshaqaw
PG&E has declared bankruptcy.

~~~
ctdonath
Read the rest of the sentence: “decommission equipment, gather up the power
lines, and sell it all as scrap.”

------
Overtonwindow
I suspect this has more to do with civil liability then has to do with
preventing wildfires. If a fire breaks out, and the power company has shut
down the power, then they can’t be blamed like last time. It’s a very nasty
way of avoiding lawsuits.

------
jusob
My electricity was shut down for 15 hours. There was no wind, no heat and I
live in a city. At least in the South Bay, there was no wind at all.

------
drawkbox
> Do California’s Blackouts Make Sense?

Doesn't make much sense until you understand the disaster capitalism angle.

The disaster capitalists[1][2] are in charge again as they have been in this
authoritarian administration and the last one when CA was being messed with
before two decades ago.[3]

The last time CA had blackouts it was due to gaming the market, mostly Enron,
and schemes to make money off of emergencies and create false fixed markets
[3].

> _One of the energy wholesalers that became notorious for "gaming the market"
> and reaping huge speculative profits was Enron Corporation. Enron CEO
> Kenneth Lay mocked the efforts by the California state government to thwart
> the practices of the energy wholesalers, saying, "In the final analysis, it
> doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart
> guys who can always figure out how to make money." The original statement
> was made in a phone conversation between S. David Freeman (Chairman of the
> California Power Authority) and Kenneth Lay in 2000, according to the
> statements made by Freeman to the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs,
> Foreign Commerce and Tourism in April and May 2002_[3]

Utilities should simply not be able to operate privately and switch to state
owned if they have to have massive blackouts like this and it would prevent
gaming. You just can't have utilities like water, power, network and more at
the whims of some money and media manipulators, the temptation is too great.
Everything else but required services is fair game. However it says something
that growth is so tapped in the US that the best way for these big fish to
make money is to burn down necessary services, creating disasters and
emergencies, and rebuild it, gaming it all the way down and up, Great
Recession style.

This outlook was echoed in the last rolling blackouts CA shock events:

> _S. David Freeman, who was appointed Chair of the California Power Authority
> in the midst of the crisis, made the following statements about Enron 's
> involvement in testimony submitted before the Subcommittee on Consumer
> Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
> Science and Transportation on May 15, 2002:_[3]

> _" There is one fundamental lesson we must learn from this experience:
> electricity is really different from everything else. It cannot be stored,
> it cannot be seen, and we cannot do without it, which makes opportunities to
> take advantage of a deregulated market endless. It is a public good that
> must be protected from private abuse. If Murphy's Law were written for a
> market approach to electricity, then the law would state 'any system that
> can be gamed, will be gamed, and at the worst possible time.' And a market
> approach for electricity is inherently gameable. Never again can we allow
> private interests to create artificial or even real shortages and to be in
> control._[3]

> _" Enron stood for secrecy and a lack of responsibility. In electric power,
> we must have openness and companies that are responsible for keeping the
> lights on. We need to go back to companies that own power plants with clear
> responsibilities for selling real power under long-term contracts. There is
> no place for companies like Enron that own the equivalent of an electronic
> telephone book and game the system to extract an unnecessary middleman’s
> profits. Companies with power plants can compete for contracts to provide
> the bulk of our power at reasonable prices that reflect costs. People say
> that Governor Davis has been vindicated by the Enron confession."_[3]

In the Enron triggered emergencies, they were 'overscheduling' on purpose and
'megawatt laundering' [5]

> _" There is a single connection between northern and southern California's
> power grids. I heard that Enron traders purposely overbooked that line, then
> caused others to need it. Next, by California's free-market rules, Enron was
> allowed to price-gouge at will."_ [5]

In my conjectured opinion on this subject in regards to the new rolling
blackout game triggered by the massive 2018 California fires [4], the fires
were started this summer as a sabotage effort to get the game started again,
and as a very useful distraction. The fires started in many points at once
[4], affecting areas that got major coverage (wealthy areas) and was
supposedly started by power lines/stations that had dry overgrowth? Two months
before the 2018 election? Shouldn't this happen every year in CA then this
widespread? I just don't believe it. I do believe that this part of the
ongoing battles between authoritarianism and CA standing up to it, the CA
market attracts this type of gaming because of its size and leading place in
setting business, specifically regulation, trends. I expect to see lots more
gaming over the next 5+ years.

The 2018 California fires were massive and the cause was listed as part of
climate change and dry vegetation, so many fires, so widespread. It was
predicted in August 2018 there would be more fires and that is a perfect
opportunity for a disaster capitalist to game it [4].

> _Many different factors led to the 2018 California wildfire season becoming
> so destructive. A combination of an increased amount of natural fuel and
> compounding atmospheric conditions linked to global warming led to a series
> of destructive fires. Recent research on wildfires in California, published
> in August 2018, predicted an increase in the number of wildfires as a
> consequence of climate change. Humans have been recorded as the main cause
> of wildfires in California. Various causes, both intentional and accidental,
> such as arson, unattended campfires, fireworks, cigarettes, cars, and power
> lines have contributed to this increase in the number of fires. Updating
> equipment, ensuring forest maintenance is being completed, and having
> oversight by state and federal governments are some of the mitigating
> actions that can reduce the risk of wildfires._ [4]

The disaster capitalists[1][2] are in charge again, to the chagrin of fair
market capitalists who see these types of players as rogue agents that are
looking to break down markets in the worst way because they know emergency
money gets approved easier and can just as easily be looted and when you break
a market you know which way it is going and can short and distort play it.
Disaster capitalist approach is all over our current economy from Puerto Rico
to the trade war to everything internally from policy to regulation. 9/11 set
a bad precedent with how we react to these events and a dark
disaster/emergency market cadence has emerged.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG9CM_J00bw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG9CM_J00bw)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/08/naomi-klein-
in...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/08/naomi-klein-interview-
puerto-rico-the-battle-for-paradise)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#Involvement_of_Enron)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_California_wildfires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_California_wildfires)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#Market_manipulation)

------
lscotte
Another paywalled story that is not free to read...

~~~
glerk
[https://archive.li/DFdeQ](https://archive.li/DFdeQ)

------
mrfusion
Here are some common sense questions I’ve wanted to ask on this topic:

Why can’t they do a controlled burn along the power lines?

How about spraying water or a fire suppressant along the power lines from a
plane or helicopter.

How about closely monitoring along the power lines and send out fire planes at
the first sign of fire? You could already have them loaded and in the air.

Long term maybe just pave the areas directly under the power lines

Or long term run a water pipe along the lines and spray out a little water
every day.

~~~
sjg007
Long term the ideal is to bury the lines.

