Scantlings

Well, we were just told by our power company, PG&E, that they might be cutting off power to 800,000 customers around mid-night tonight. They are claiming that they are doing this to be "safe" from wildfires. But... I look at the weather forecasts, and I don't see it. Sure, it'll be blowing 35-40 knots offshore from 100 miles north of SF to about 100 miles south, but inshore the winds are forecast to be 10-20; which is what we get almost every day all summer.

Here's the background: PG&E is in bankruptcy precisely because it didn't turn off the power in windstorms last year, the results were terrible. People died, entire towns burned to the ground, tens of thousands of acres blackened.

So... it looks like the current in-bankruptcy management is basically going hard over the other way. From what the weather service is telling me, the models on SailFlow, and the HRRR it looks like this will be a breezy but relatively harmless day.

It'll be interesting to watch what really happens.

As one who lived a period of my life in SoCal, I've been watching this 'solution' with a bit of humorous anticipation. So since they got blamed last year for a fire that was truly horrendous, they're fixing their liability 'problem'. Methinks that a few planned power outages every fall will make someone come to their senses.

#1, There is risk in all parts of our everyday lives
#2 A homeless encampment is more likely to be the spark--not so many deep pockets to sue now, is there?
#3 Folks will quickly decide that the risk outweighs the inconvenience of resetting their clocks and having to go buy a portable generator to keep their meds cold and their wells running.

Beau, you have my sympathy but.... I've got popcorn....!

They routinely turn off the power in South Australia when it is very windy, unsure about the speed threshold.

It appears to have made a big difference to their wildfire problems, and sales of generators have also boomed.

Chris Chesley wrote:As one who lived a period of my life in SoCal, I've been watching this 'solution' with a bit of humorous anticipation. So since they got blamed last year for a fire that was truly horrendous, they're fixing their liability 'problem'. Methinks that a few planned power outages every fall will make someone come to their senses.

#1, There is risk in all parts of our everyday lives
#2 A homeless encampment is more likely to be the spark--not so many deep pockets to sue now, is there?
#3 Folks will quickly decide that the risk outweighs the inconvenience of resetting their clocks and having to go buy a portable generator to keep their meds cold and their wells running.

Beau, you have my sympathy but.... I've got popcorn....!

Well, it's a lot more complex than that. CA generates a LOT of its power from hydro. As a result, the wires have to run down from the Sierra Nevada mountains to the rest of the state. These wires weren't maintained. Instead, PG&E paid big bonuses and large dividends. The dividends drive the stock prices up, and executives at the company made off with hundreds of millions. The executives were paid with stock because it was supposed to have aligned their interests with the stockholders, but this is a heavily regulated industry. They have no competition, by law. As a result, to make these payouts they skipped a lot of preventative maintenance.

Homeless encampments have never been given as a cause of a fire in my memory. Last year's fires were downed power lines due to PG&E failing to cut down trees which overhung the power lines and a tire going flat on a trailer which created a lot of sparks. The previous few years, it has been all PG&E, if memory serves. Then there was the massive gas pipeline explosion awhile back that killed a lot of folks and burned down a large number of houses. Once again PG&E not doing their routine maintenance.

All of this has now driven PG&E in to bankruptcy. So, there's not much to do but raise the rates. One can't claw back the dividends or the stock gains for the Executives, which were a direct result of the dividends. The Bankruptcy Court did grab the executive pension fund, which was around half a billion. So, that will help a little. But, the lawsuits from last year's fires alone are in the tens of billions.

No, the customers are screwed. This turning off the power thing is just the last step in screwing us all. This fire risk is entirely unnecessary. It's just greed and a total failure of the regulatory agency to enforce the maintenance rules and regulations which were in place.

No, the customers are screwed. This turning off the power thing is just the last step in screwing us all. This fire risk is entirely unnecessary. It's just greed and a total failure of the regulatory agency to enforce the maintenance rules and regulations which were in place.


Beau, this is the tragedy. Sure, folks can sue. But in reality everyone pays. So who is suing the regulatory agency? Answer: It doesn't matter cuz the people will get to pay more. It's a no win. This cycle ultimately is leading Kali further into a third world state of being. No worries though, the rest of the US is close behind.

When the courts tell a public utility they can’t recover costs from their customers, than you have to expect them to take action to limit liability.

Mismanagement and lack of oversIght aside, this is a pretty predictable response to what has happened.

Chris Chesley wrote:No, the customers are screwed. This turning off the power thing is just the last step in screwing us all. This fire risk is entirely unnecessary. It's just greed and a total failure of the regulatory agency to enforce the maintenance rules and regulations which were in place.


Beau, this is the tragedy. Sure, folks can sue. But in reality everyone pays. So who is suing the regulatory agency? Answer: It doesn't matter cuz the people will get to pay more. It's a no win. This cycle ultimately is leading Kali further into a third world state of being. No worries though, the rest of the US is close behind.

Chris, despite this incredible screwup this really is an outlier around here. For the most part, things do work pretty well. What is painfully clear is the following:

1) Monopoly "corporations" which are privately owned and run as if they are true public companies are a sham. It isn't just this one, there are plenty of other examples across the country. A "regulated monopoly" is basically a company set up for regulatory capture.

2) The various calls for "privatization" of the power industry have no freaking clue what they're talking about. Imagine multiple parallel power grids. The invested assets would never pay off. For example, one need only look at the railroad industry when there were 5 parallel rail lines between New York and Chicago. They all went bust together. Vanderbilt stepped in with political connections and "fixed it" by making himself insanely wealthy through the astute use of a "regulated monopoly".

3) Even though the free-market person in me hates it, the right answer is to have certain key pieces of infrastructure run by the Government. Yes, it's inefficient. But compare that to the inefficiencies of what's going on right now with PG&E. There are those who claim that the Government can't do anything right. That's a childish and unsupportable trope. The prime example is that we have no problem letting the Government run the Military. Yes, it's amazingly inefficient. I have yet to see any private enterprise of that scale which is more efficient. Those only exist in free-market manifestos, not in the real world.

4) Sadly, because few Californians actually believe #3, PG&E will probably be recreated as another bit of "regulated monopoly" and will probably exhibit the same failings.

I'm off to work on budgets. Oh joy!!

Windy shows 40 kts out on the water, nothing like that inland.