Home
Posted By: EZEARL Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
Those folks are going to have to decide whether they want trees/brush or electric.

"Johnson, the PG&E CEO, responded in writing to Newsom’s letter Monday, noting that no fires occurred during the power shut-off. He said he welcomes the PUC review."

https://onenewsnow.com/ap/politics/california-regulator-criticizes-utility-over-power-outages
Posted By: JSTUART Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19


Pretty sure that is the problem, the people don't get a choice.
Posted By: Mannlicher Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
PG&E gets sued if they provide power, and sued if they fail to provide power. Fires, and lawsuits resulting from those fires, caused by California regulations for clearing brush, about put PG&E out of business.
Posted By: poboy Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
The State Of California could buy out all the power companies.
The State could cut power off and on several times a day, as necessary.
The State could cut power at night , when nobody needs it anyways, between 9pm to 5am.
The State could save Californios lots of money.
Posted By: hasbeen1945 Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
As if people need another reason to leave that liberal infested state.
Posted By: EZEARL Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
PG&E gets sued if they provide power, and sued if they fail to provide power. Fires, and lawsuits resulting from those fires, caused by California regulations for clearing brush, about put PG&E out of business.


Problem isn't only the California regulations regarding the clearing of brush and trees (which I know nothing about but beings it's California I can do more than just guess) but also the landowner. I worked powerline r/w maintenance in MD,VA,and WV for 15yrs ending in '96. If the landowner only wanted minimum line to tree/brush clearance (power company would allow trees no closer than 2' and underbrush I believe was 6') that's what they got. Luckily most of the time the landowners let us do max clearance. I believe the main reason for that was I let them know that if their foliage took out a line we were by law able to remove whatever was needed at the time to get the line up and in service. Also we were not required to come back later on to clean up what we took down.


My son did the same kind work in the Chico area back in '96 when PG&E asked for help from our company in that area due to the wildfires. He told me it was a waste of time due to the fact that the locals wouldn't let you remove anything and were trimming for minimum clearance. He said they were even trimming the tops of brush for minimum clearance.
Posted By: FreeMe Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by poboy
The State Of California could buy out all the power companies.
The State could cut power off and on several times a day, as necessary.
The State could cut power at night , when nobody needs it anyways, between 9pm to 5am.
The State could save Californios lots of money.


I suspect that is the intended goal. Sounds like a great plan. Have fun with that.
Posted By: FreeMe Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
Gleaned this from social media....

Quote
This is why your power is off.

PSPS is the acronym for “Public Safety Power Shutoff”.
New Ca law (enacted by PUC and signed by Gov Newsome) REQUIRES utilities (ALL, not just PG&E) to de-energize areas that face severe wind threat/ fire risk.
This has the Doppler effect of potentially impacting huge swaths of the State if that threat impacts a “Transmission” (500/230KV) Tower corridor(s).
When that level of shut off is enacted, you don’t just flip a switch back on. The law requires PG&E to physically/visually inspect every single piece of equipment (down voltage) of the shut down BEFORE it can be re-energized. This means every tower, line, transformer, pad apparatus, substation, pole, reclosure, etc.
This is why a 2 day event can potentially keep areas dark for several days after the threat has passed. It is a MASSIVE man hrs. labor intensive process on 24/7 overtime staffing.
PG&E loses HUGE $$ when this is enacted as thousands of meters are not spinning and the labor cost to comply is huge. They don’t want to do these. They are legally mandated to now. This is the arrangement that was brokered through the PUC to balance the conflicting liability/service reliability laws. It is all driven because of California’s “Inverse Condemnation” liability conflict with PUC’s previous fining of the Company based on outage reliability.
Prior, power shut off or outage = fine. Leave it on, and have ANY% role in a fire= 100% liability.
If a limb 1/4 mile away blew into a transmission line and brought down hot conductor starting a fire?
PG&E liable. No such thing as “Act of God” factored.
No other State in the Nation has these asinine conflicts of law.

So, to make this real. This is analogous to you knowing your daughter MAY have a bad hair dryer. Until she leaves, you shut your house main off. Now, by law, before you can flip the main switch back on, you must hire an electrician to inspect (and document) every breaker below your main, every wire in your attic, every wall switch, every outlet, etc. Then, you must one by one phase in all your breakers so you don’t shock load the system, then you have to go back and program all your digital electronics.

Multiply this by 50K square miles.

NOW, do you understand?
Posted By: mtnsnake Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
Liberal BS in cali.
Posted By: Raeford Re: Calif power dilema - 10/15/19
Originally Posted by JSTUART


Pretty sure that is the problem, the people don't get a choice.



Oh they've had choice aplenty at the ballot box every few years.

The choice made there is the issue, much like my formerly beloved Virginia.
© 24hourcampfire