Reading this I imagined their management team sitting around a table discussing: "So the litigation happy people have sued us for billions, legislators refuse to protect us and insurance is not going to cover this at any affordable cost. Best move is to shut down power, that will avoid claims and make it known to Joe the Plumber that current policy is ridiculous." Other MT member: "But Bob, we're the power company, we can't turn off the power!" and the final conclusion being that best best chess move is to actually turn off the power.
I predict that they'll win and within the next few years local politicians are going to change something to ensure the power stays on.
Exactly. Some kind of middle ground needs to be found here - either a limitation of liability at some level or some kind of agreed-upon thermal event monitoring shared between PG&E and local fire departments. Otherwise the only business-viable alternative is to keep turning off the power. Burying equipment/lines would probably cost enough to bankrupt them.
Of course, the alternative for customers is to install a Powerwall or equivalent for these situations, so maybe this is good for Tesla/distributed grid proponents?
They're already bankrupt - filed for Chapter 11 at the beginning of this year.
What they should've been doing all along is maintaining their damn equipment - the reason we have regulated public monopolies is so that they can generate sufficient revenues to afford long-term capital investments that prevent things like this. There're a bunch of systemic failures here, some on the part of CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) and some on PG&E management. But given that we're here, blackouts are probably preferable to burning up half the state again.
It does make me want to just go off-grid with a Powerwall and solar panels. If we don't actually get reliable electricity out of the deal, exactly what are we paying the electricity company for? But that's challenging as a renter, and buying (and maintaining) a house in California is equally challenging.
This is where an $11 Billion wildfire settlement leads. If PG&E are being held financially responsible for the actions of their transmission and distribution lines in high wind events then I would expect them to fight for the right to not transmit and distribute power in those events. What's bad for consumers is even though you may not live in a high wind area the transmission lines ultimately serving you may be in one and subsequently shut off. On a more positive note, if these actions prevent wildfires that destroy property and claim lives then isn't it worth it?
This kinda sucks, but what else are they supposed to do? It's already been established that any wildfires caused by their equipment will be their fault; cutting off power in case of potential wildfires would seem to be the only logical way to respond to that reality.
It seems like the right move today, but ideally moving forward we see an investment in infrastructure. (either in more robust transmission or more localized production)
I predict that they'll win and within the next few years local politicians are going to change something to ensure the power stays on.