[bhawks]

They've been willfully negligent and reckless to the infrastructure they own to service their customers.

In this case we're not even talking about tree trimming, we have a 100 year old tower. It's obvious it will fail soon, there should be an internal maintenance program to replace/update it. There are no such programs, PGE operates in a way that there would never be such a program. PGE should be held liable for predictable out comes of its behaviours. (see all it's other catastrophic failures across the state)

A normal company would not exist after one PGE level negligent catastrophe. PGE is still around because it holds the state hostage to our energy infrastructure. This is not acceptable.

The key recurring theme is negligence. That's the reason PGE faces such high liabilities for the disasters it causes. This is not an act of God.

I believe it's totally possible to operate a for profit utility that's safe and reliable. PGE can't do that, now how can california untangle this mess.

[20after4]

Where I live in rural Missouri, we have "rural electric cooperatives." They are customer-owned utilities set up in the 1930s. From my experience and that of everyone I've talked to in the region, the coops are incredibly reliable, take safety and maintenance very seriously, and provide service at very reasonable rates.

It seems clear to me that for-profit business is the wrong model for an infrastructure monopoly like power delivery networks.

[bhawks]

PGEs for profit status is kind of derailing tangent in these discussions. There are many successful ownership models for running a utility safely and reliably.

PGE has a long term organizational culture in leadership that creates this environment of negligent behaviours. Essentially all of PGEs problems are due to PGE -climate, environment, geography and company profit motives are secondary causes of these disasters at best.

[Johnny555]

They've been willfully negligent and reckless to the infrastructure they own to service their customers.

No doubt, but I'm just pointing out the reality -- make them responsible for any size fire set off by their equipment, and they will respond by turning off electricity during high fire danger periods. This isn't something that "might" happen, this is exactly what did happen.

So simply assigning more liability is not the answer.

[Klinky]

That's fine then, have them turn it off during periods of high fire danger. Massive wildfires also interrupt electrical service.

Are you suggesting it's a good thing that they run their poorly maintained lines with a high chance of causing a fire during periods of high fire danger?

People want power, but they also don't want to die in a fire.