If you don't do your job...do you get to turn the power off?

General Discussion
#1

Hornet’s nest +baseball bat= :thinking:!?

What are the thoughts out there? Is this the solution to reduce fire potential?
KCRA Sacramento: PG&E may shut off power in 12 counties due to fire dangers. Or is it an entity absolving themselves of responsibility, liability, and an admission of guilt, or just pure corporate protection of the almighty Dollar!?$$ Last option, personal opinion is out of line?

Abstract thoughts: if there is a new start of any “cause” ,with no power, not all will receive reverse 911, those supplied by Wells for water can do nothing for private suppression…etc etc.
(Reality: in Shasta County the temp increased 10*. In the last 3 hrs,70-80 dependent upon elevation, rh has dropped by 12% to 22% in the last hour, 2330 hrs)

“SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (KCRA) —
Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced Saturday night it may turn off power in parts of 12 counties within the next 24 hours due to expected extreme fire danger conditions.”

1 Like
#2

If the poco is going to be held strictly liable for any and all damages that occur off any ignition no matter the weather conditions and the lack of land management (continuous fuel bed) leading away from their facilities, then they are going to have to do whatever it takes to not be a source of any ignition.

I agree about the lack of phone and water service.

In the old days the phone company supplied all power necessary from their end.

Water will mean generators I am afraid. (Full disclosure: I am in the generator business now.)

1 Like
#3

@Kman Opinions are always valued! My direct answers to your questions:

  • It is my personal opinion that this approach, while a powerful last-resort, is one more attempt in reducing fire potential during times of highest risk. Untested at this scale, yet options to fit the need seem extremely limited. What other alternatives have been suggested, tested, and applied? What are the cascading effects from those alternatives?

  • Power shutdowns were never considered an end-all-be-all “solution” since they were first thought up, instead they are simply the newest component in the myriad of fire prevention measures we have available “in the toolbox”. Disrupting normal life with a wide-scale power shutdown has lasting impacts beyond the actual time with no electricity, these are the uncertain consequences that keeps everyone on edge.

  • The most frustrating part about these media campaigns is the entire lack of perspective. Dressing it up to look like a liability or a profit-driven issue… LOL. Did they forget about public safety as a whole? Or protecting critical infrastructure so responders can continue doing their job?? They must have missed the part about CPUC regulations requiring utilities to serve proactive due diligence under extreme conditions…

  • Folks impacted by such a power cut-off have had nearly a year’s advance notice that such measures would be on the table. Also, it is my understanding that PG&E, SMUD and SCE have been working with medical baseliners, hospitals/clinics, and other critical-needs entities for quite some time to ensure they have adequate services during and after an electrical cut-off . Should liability be placed on the utility to ensure 100% of its clients, particularly those living on the grid in the remote wilds, have appropriate emergency plans in place AND follow through with them?

Just my view from the ridgetop…

2 Likes
#4

SCE made presentations on their reasoning and process to two unified command sessions in two counties and after attending both, I was satisfied they were doing the right thing. Their plan is well thought out and comprehensive, and is costing them a lot of money to implement. Is it self serving? Certainly. As a corporation with a lot of exposure, they would be remiss if they didn’t do anything to protect themselves. Their intention is to give at least 24 hrs notice to the general public prior to a PROPOSED shutdown, and then actually implementing a shutdown when resources on the ground in the area of the proposed shutdown say that implementation is necessary. If SCE can prevent a large scale fire in the middle of a Red Flag by killing power to overhead services, then by all means do it. Will there be a negative impact on the customer base? Of course, but after having seen large scale fires start because of sparks from overhead lines,and having to contend with the resultant fire suppression in the middle of a Red Flag wind event, and loosing power to my community due to the power lines being burned down( not all in the same event), the old adage of an ounce of prevention etc. etc. is well worth the inconvenience. When it comes to the “media”, caveat emptor.

1 Like
#5

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/firethreatmaps/

I spoke to SCE about this topic: they described it as always having been a tool in their kit, with decisions being driven by weather, risks within certain zones, condition of infrastructure, etc. He mentioned the need to shut down lines that were threatened by fire, describing this new action as an extension of actions they routinely take to promote fire fighter safety.

Note link above, there are maps to describe the fire threat zones. He told me they had not yet defined their triggers for a shut down: combination of weather, fuel conditions, and infrastructure condition.

#6

Interesting twist given the Camp inci…

PG&E Determines to Not Proceed With Public Safety Power Shutoff Planned for Portions of Eight Northern California Counties
5:34pm ET, 11/08/2018 - Business Wire

SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Nov. 8, 2018-- Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has determined that it will not proceed with plans today for a Public Safety Power Shutoff in portions of eight Northern California counties, as weather conditions did not warrant this safety measure.

On Tuesday, PG&E began notifying approximately 70,000 customers in portions of Northern California of the potential that the company would turn off power for safety given forecasts of extreme fire danger conditions. PG&E will now notify customers directly via automated calls, texts and emails that the potential Public Safety Power Shutoff has been canceled.

“We want to thank our customers for their understanding and for their actions in preparation of a possible Public Safety Power Shutoff. We know how much our customers rely on electric service, and we will only consider temporarily turning off power in the interest of safety and as a last resort during extreme weather conditions to reduce the risk of wildfire,” said Pat Hogan, PG&E senior vice president of Electric Operations.

PG&E continues to remind customers who live in high-fire-danger areas to have a plan. Customers can learn whether their home or business is in or near a high fire-threat area by reviewing the California Public Utilities Commission’s High Fire-Threat District map. They can also visit www.pge.com/wildfiresafety to determine whether their home or business is served by an electric line that may be turned off for safety.

To learn more about PG&E’s work to reduce the risk of wildfires, visit www.pge.com/wildfiresafety.

#7

This is my reply to Driftsmoke’s comments above.

This - or these, all of them. I have never heard a truly comprehensive, definitive analysis of the cause of the Camp fire. There are so many elements that are known, or rather known not to be known, like what were the design specifications for the equipment, vs reasonably - expected vectors, the condition of the equipment, barriers to update or maintain PG&E’s equipment (there are many, all political), etc. I’ve personally witnessed many of the efforts of PG&E in their efforts to manage the vegetation in their right-of-ways, and the political entities that, first hound them to do a better job, then second throw insurmountable barriers that prevent them from carrying out even basic land management. I am not so quickly inclined to throw all the blame on PG&E, because I’ve never been given adequate information.

Then there’s the fact, documented by the radio and TV ads, and the thickness of my PG&E bills, that anybody who wasn’t adequately prepared for these outages, has nobody to blame but themselves.

Here’s the bottom line - the State of California is determined to destroy PG&E, and take over the state’s utilities. They will succeed. And anybody who thinks they’ll get better service, etc. when it’s being run by the state . . . I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you today, at a very reasonable price.

3 Likes
#8

Newsom and his Liberal cronies only care about themselves. If you stay in CA, you’ll be living the first state going Socialistic. Glad we moved out last year!
Flee while you still have time! :airplane:

2 Likes
#9

Flyron should have used more sentences gently making your way to the point. I do think that you posted in the right place. Flagged because of what strong opinion?

#10

I will have to agree with Ron, my family and I are fleeing said state in early 2020

2 Likes
#11

They ain’t gonna run my ass outa here I’ll stay and fight for reasonable government :us:

5 Likes
#12

Total nonsense

1 Like
#13

It already is a socialist state

3 Likes
#14

Look up - GONE in the California Sunday Magazine. Quite an article about last years “Camp” Fire.

#15

Half way through my career I realized there is an inherent risk to living. Considering infrastructure built in an area of any kind of vegetation, in Calif., it behooves the property owner to effect their own defensible space, whether public or private ownership, well before a wildfire bears down on their Assessor’s Parcel Number. I would think an exponential number of structures could have avoided being included in the “structures burned/damaged” report, had they been in an adequately prepped defensible space. “Adequate” varies greatly, dependent on the fuel load of the premises. Fire safe clearances have been talking points for 50+ years…so why are we still seeing inadequate clearances?
I see people on the east coast prepping their houses in advance of a hurricane by securing pre-cut plywood on their windows, etc. There’s likely some people on the west coast that have taken similar advance fire protection measures, but maybe, too few?? Even if a property has a wooden deck, a deck overhanging a slope below, screened eave vents, or a multitude of other structural components susceptible to ignition, there should be ways to mitigate ignition probabilities.
After structural losses, property owners seem to want to finger someone/something to blame for their loss, instead of maybe assessing their own lack of fire preparedness.
So now, because utility companies have been fingered for fire cause, they are taking preemptive measures to mitigate responsibility on their part resulting in disrupting ATMs, gas stations, refrigeration, charging of “green” electric cars, medical devices, water wells/pumps, and on and on.
Fires have, and will, be part of Calif’s. way life. But we seem to be doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
Advance preparedness needs to be equal to, or exceeding, that way of life. Human-kind sometimes stays ahead of the curve by exercising ingenuity and resourcefulness and there’s plenty of opportunity to exercise that in advance of Calif’s. fire future.

4 Likes
#16

If we break up pg&e that may solve something but we still have the immediate problem with the infrastructure, people suggest putting all power utilities under ground but that is not feasible. It’s not possible to build the Panama canal now because of regulations, lawsuits, and politics so why would we think that we could accomplish that in this state when we have been having lawsuits over and studies to build the sites reservoir and temperance flat for 40 years. If we put it above ground in conduits people will sue just because it might look ugly, trucks are polluting the air, helicopters are noisy, or whatever other reasons they will find to stop it.

As for shutting off the power I would do the same thing as pge because they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Southern California Edison is in the same boat as pge.

4 Likes
#17

PG&E like a lot of power companies had not invested enough money in the past on tree clearance, and maintaining their equipment.
Turning the power off seems like a good idea, but ironically they may not have turned enough power off.
Like people in hurricane zones, you have got to prepare long and short term, and establish a mental approach that yes one day you may have to evacuate.

1 Like