SB 901

General Discussion
#1

Senate Bill 901 is on the Governor’s desk.SB 901 actual

SB 901 Translated

After reading threw I beleive these are the high points

"For fires that started in 2017, the California Public Utilities Commission would conduct a “stress test” to determine the maximum amount of damages a utility could sustain without harming ratepayers or going bankrupt. That amount would serve as a “cap” on their fiscal liability.

Also for fires started in 2017, costs passed along to ratepayers could be financed — spread out over several years under a process called “securitization” — to reduce the sticker shock on ratepayers’ monthly utility bills.

For fires caused by electrical infrastructure from next year forward, the CPUC will decide whether a utility acted reasonably, considering factors that include extreme weather conditions. If so, the CPUC could order that the costs be passed along to ratepayers and securitized."

And the elephant in the room:

“The bill also sets aside $200 million annually in proposed funding through the 2023-24 fiscal year for forest health, fire prevention and reduction of “fuel,” or trees and vegetation. The money would come from carbon emission auction revenues under California’s “cap and trade” greenhouse gas emission-reduction program.”

#2

Excuse my ignorance, but, what does carbon emmisions have to do with forest health? Sure wildfires emmit carbon, but it is short cycle carbons that have been in most cases captured by vegitation over the last 10 years. All carbons coming from tail gasoline tailpipes are fossil fuels carbons captured over a million years ago. If you want to really capture the carbons use all solar electric equipment to chip all that forest fuels haul it off to an abandonded coal mine and pump in back under ground. Then leave it there for thousands of years.

#3

Nice how they added the “if you want this then you’ll have to give that” to the bill. Meaning, if you want a bill that helps to make the forest healthy with prevention measures, you have to let the utility companies charge the customers more money to fix their mistakes and the damage their failed equipment caused.
Typical!

#4

This is way outside the box, but I kind of feel like people that maintain their property in such a condition that fires rip through it and burn out other properties should bear some responsibility as well. (All the vacant brush covered land that is private and never maintained by the owner or anybody.)

The logical conclusion of holding utilities strictly liable for an ignition that spreads broadly and burns a bunch of houses 20 or 30 miles away is that they are going to refuse to serve outlying areas at all.

Try getting PG&E to extend you new service in a rural area now and let us know how it goes, how long it takes and what it costs.

#5

I don’t think that was thought out very well. I sure don’t want to see people that own land be responsible for fire that burns through them. So if a home owner lets his place go and a fire burns through it and catches his neighbors place on fire he’s liable. Sounds like a over reach to me. What about public lands. Forest catches on fire burns out my property, are they going to be responsible for my losses. This concept is never ending.

#6

I agree the devil is in the details but owners do need to take some sort of action to prevent injury to their neighbor’s property. There are always going to be fire starts, from power lines, dragging chains, lightning, car fires, etc.

In my neighborhood the development happened back about 50 years when ranches were still everywhere, and 50 years before that it was mining, now the land sits utterly idle growing 12 foot tall brush and nobody lifts a finger, often because of a misguided sentiment that untouched is better, or a shield from their neigbors, or the best was an editorial I saw where someone wrote that the brush would slow the fire down.

The government should be no different, many people I know have lots abutting USFS land where nothing has been done for 30+ years, all dog hair firs and brush, when they built there they were under the assumption that that land would be managed like it had been in the past, now it is ignored mostly.

Lots more I could say but let’s see what others have to say.

2 Likes
#7

Sure, but living in a middle of a concrete jungle hundreds of miles from a fire that was caused by a blown transformer and takes down an entire city, how do I get stuck with a bill for that???

#8

You probably don’t, since your power probably comes from a city utility.

#9

PG&E just like everyone else north of bakerfield

#10

politics
Latin English
poly = many

Tics = blood sucking little animals

1 Like
#11

Seeing as how this thread is attracting little attention I will attempt to give it a stir.

PG&E is so big, bloated and slow, and fully regulated by the government, that they might as well be government.

Our local small agencies are have no voice when it comes to PG&E facilities large or small, they do what they want, when they want.

I don’t know the answer to the Santa Rosa problem either.

As usual we pay the highest rates for electric already. So increasing the rate will only increase the pain for everyone.

But making the company pay for the 14 billion dollars over their insurance will surely break it. And then where will we be left. Receivership, or a Central and Northern California Municipal Utility District. I don’t want that either.

I also wonder what percent of CALPERS, CALSTRS, etc. is invested in PG&E, what would be the systemic effects if they were to be busted down.

@Fireminder31 , where do you live in a concrete jungle (just generally if you prefer) that is PG&E, I am curious? Around here all the cities have their own power.

#12

Ok I’ll bite since it was advertised

Complaints and gripes heard

A- those are utility bills…so you pay or you don’t. Free to choose where you live.

B- um the govnt bailed pg&e out before(twice, bankruptcy then san Ramon) and admittedly the state continues to get land as trade,pay-BACK( which means it’s PUBLIC LAND,) just have to be a good lil taxpayer to research and find out these new awsome places are, because most of pg&e land revolves around running water :thinking:

C-WHAT ARE YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTIONS!??. or if this is just a vent or a baseball bat against the hornet’s nest. Completely understood.

Solutions fall out of the sky.

Disclaimer- statements are void of political agendas.not so easily said by others.