Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

Are they under pressure from regulators or courts to never start another fire again or something?

From my cursory understanding, they are not under direct pressure but recent legal fines have implicitly made the risks of remaining operational sky-high. What did the litigators think would happen?

> What did the litigators think would happen?

That PG&E would stop paying out dividends instead of doing the maintenance they are supposed to be doing?

https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-stock-...

Then how about prohibiting dividends, buybacks, and bonuses until they are ready to accept liability -- or some other way of structuring this regulation other than imposing contradictory requirements on them that force blackouts?

Utilities are heavily regulated. Each year, budget has to be approved by Sacramento.

Not fines so much, but payments to insurance companies and others who suffered loses in fires found to be started by PG&E power lines.

That the age old failure of leadership could be blamed on the greed of the corporation. They are all complicit, ain't nothin' new.

My guess is the ultimate end game is to get the state to pass a law shielding them from liability if they do start another. "Shield us from liability and we will stop the blackouts."

Yep. That's what they do.

This is the end game^

This of course can't end poorly as the second such a bill is passed, all incentive to maintain equipment goes out the window.

The state should (i.e. probably will not) counter by throwing a few of their execs in jail for their role in starting fires due to failure to maintain their stuff aka gross negligence.

But the houses were built next to this tinderbox. They were going to burn eventually.

That. Is that really case? I mean honestly. I really suspect that a large part of the problem is the desire for people to have a house in the woods but I'm unclear as to how you could quantify that suspicion. Or who has.

The fact that they burned is proof. As t -> infinity, the probability of a wildfire approaches 1, even without electricity.

A lot of people don't know about when they wanted to double rates a few years ago and were getting a huge backlash, they just starting turning off the power in "rolling blackouts" just because they were mad. After about a week all the anti rate increase talk stopped and the rates doubled and everyone just forgot about it. They are horrid people.

This is the case that established unlimited liability for PG&E regardless of any determination of negligence on its part or staff.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1223894.html

CA legislators could pass a law changing this.

Yes, bankruptcy court. If they are liable for another fire before they get out of bankruptcy, then the victims of the new fire will be paid before existing victims, creditors, and shareholders. https://twitter.com/jared_ellias/status/1187523144505937921

Yeah that’s what happens when you’re held liable for damages caused by a fire.

That's what happens when you don't maintain your equipment or the land around it and cause fires as a result- you get held responsible for it.

You say "potato," he says, "spud."

The state law is particularly nasty to PGE: utilities are liable for damages even if they aren't negligent.

For years they have been deferring maintenance in order to pay out dividends and buy back stock.

They have been negligent.

That's easier said than done when you talking about the biggest economic state and most populous are in the country going dark.

The costs could wayyy higher than any forest fire.

No, it's just cheaper to cut power (doubly so when you ask the state to pay for it and just pocket it) than it is to actually do the work of maintaining the safe gaps between power lines and trees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com