California throws lifeline to PG&E over potential Camp Fire liability

[TU Curmudgeon]

Gubamint evil... Great argument.

:lol:

Meanwhile all the studies on medicaid for all is much cheaper than the private industry. Your fear of government is clouding your judgement to make any decent argument on the topic it seems.

IN British Columbia the provincial government owns the electric utilities (well, almost all of them). That includes the power transmission sites (well, almost all of them) and the power transmission lines (all of them, at least the major ones). The provincial government keeps the power transmission line rights of way "cleared" and doesn't have to worry about infringing on private land because it also owns the power transmission line rights of way.

BC hasn't had a forest fire that was started due to poorly "cleared" power transmission rights of way in decades (and also hasn't had one that was sparked by poorly maintained power transmission lines/equipment - ever).

What does that mean?

It means that it COULD be done in other jurisdictions.

Oh yes, the cost per kilowatt/hour for electricity in BC is roughly 50% of the cost in California (partly because the electric utilities in BC are run on a "break even allowing for potential future expansion and repair" basis (at least that's what they aim for).

PS - The electric utilities in BC used to be privately owned until 1961 when the "right wing" (Canadian standards used in definition) government expropriated it (and purchased all outstanding shares at the market value as of the date the legislation expropriating it was passed).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It wouldn't have made any difference with the fires. One could easily argue that the problem would be worse... a public utility would have less incentive to maintain proper pruning of trees around the lines.

Have you taken a look at the actual performance in that regard in jurisdictions where the electric utilities are "publicly owned"?

I suspect that you have not.

If I wanted your brain to hurt, I'd suggest that you do so - but I'm a kind and considerate person so I'll just say that your statement is BS (I never said that I was polite).

 

[poweRob]

IN British Columbia the provincial government owns the electric utilities (well, almost all of them). That includes the power transmission sites (well, almost all of them) and the power transmission lines (all of them, at least the major ones). The provincial government keeps the power transmission line rights of way "cleared" and doesn't have to worry about infringing on private land because it also owns the power transmission line rights of way.

BC hasn't had a forest fire that was started due to poorly "cleared" power transmission rights of way in decades (and also hasn't had one that was sparked by poorly maintained power transmission lines/equipment - ever).

What does that mean?

It means that it COULD be done in other jurisdictions.

Oh yes, the cost per kilowatt/hour for electricity in BC is roughly 50% of the cost in California (partly because the electric utilities in BC are run on a "break even allowing for potential future expansion and repair" basis (at least that's what they aim for).

PS - The electric utilities in BC used to be privately owned until 1961 when the "right wing" (Canadian standards used in definition) government expropriated it (and purchased all outstanding shares at the market value as of the date the legislation expropriating it was passed).

Voila. I guess that completely ruins EMNofSeattle's point of "everything government does is bad" right there.

 

[dcsports]

Have you taken a look at the actual performance in that regard in jurisdictions where the electric utilities are "publicly owned"?

I suspect that you have not.

If I wanted your brain to hurt, I'd suggest that you do so - but I'm a kind and considerate person so I'll just say that your statement is BS (I never said that I was polite).

Resorting to personal attacks again?

To answer your question, yes. For the most part, public utilities are more expensive, less efficient, and slower to change. That doesn't mean there aren't good ones and bad ones of each.

Congrats to British Columbia in your example above. But remember that their conditions are different than those in California. The local governments are also far different - I have very little faith in the ability of the state of California to do anything efficiently.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Voila. I guess that completely ruins EMNofSeattle's point of "everything government does is bad" right there.

Well the total disproof of my statements is along the lines of "Hell, in Canada even the "right-wing" parties are Commies." - which means that you don't actually have to look at the facts.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Resorting to personal attacks again?

To answer your question, yes. For the most part, public utilities are more expensive, less efficient, and slower to change. That doesn't mean there aren't good ones and bad ones of each.

Congrats to British Columbia in your example above. But remember that their conditions are different than those in California. The local governments are also far different - I have very little faith in the ability of the state of California to do anything efficiently.

I don't have ANY faith in ANY government to do ANYTHING efficiently UNLESS you watch them like a hawk and keep holding their feet to the fire. In California that would apply to BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats.

PS - "That's DIFFERENT!!!" is not really a response to "It could be done this way.".

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Would you prefer PG&E go bankrupt and shut down?

I'd prefer PG&E AND the state work together to start putting most if not all utility lines underground. This is 2018...we don't use knob and tube wiring, appliances don't use cloth insulation on their power cords, we don't stick pennies in fuse boxes, and we shouldn't have ancient and corroded wires strung on rickety phone poles in densely crowded areas with lots of flammable tree growth.
Most of these dangerous lines are residential supply lines, so it's not that difficult to vault them.

The other thing we can do is to give even more support for residential solar, to the point where neighborhoods in fire danger areas can excercise a certain amount of self-sufficiency on high fire danger days.

California has to look at unique approaches to these problems and be willing to lead the way with ideas that some may find unconventional.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'd prefer PG&E AND the state work together to start putting most if not all utility lines underground. This is 2018...we don't use knob and tube wiring, appliances don't use cloth insulation on their power cords, we don't stick pennies in fuse boxes, and we shouldn't have ancient and corroded wires strung on rickety phone poles in densely crowded areas with lots of flammable tree growth.
Most of these dangerous lines are residential supply lines, so it's not that difficult to vault them.

The other thing we can do is to give even more support for residential solar, to the point where neighborhoods in fire danger areas can excercise a certain amount of self-sufficiency on high fire danger days.

California has to look at unique approaches to these problems and be willing to lead the way with ideas that some may find unconventional.

Good ideas.

Now, what do you estimate the cost of putting all of America's power lines underground would run to?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Good ideas.

Now, what do you estimate the cost of putting all of America's power lines underground would run to?

Never said "all of America's power lines".
Look at a bunch of Orange County cities and towns, a lot of them have residential power lines vaulted underground.
All I am asking is that we at least START WITH the lines feeding high risk areas. In the end it's MUCH cheaper than letting entire towns burn to the ground, no?
In the end it's MUCH cheaper than continually trying to martial a herculean army to fight these fires year in and year out.
For less than those two combined costs, we can bury residential feeds to high risk burn area neighborhoods.
It's just simple risk management.

Give me one good reason why we should continue to maintain endless stretches of rickety phone poles carrying rickety power lines into areas with a lot of highly flammable growth. It doesn't make any sense.
We put spark arresters on lawnmower mufflers for the very same reason, risk mitigation.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Never said "all of America's power lines".
Look at a bunch of Orange County cities and towns, a lot of them have residential power lines vaulted underground.
All I am asking is that we at least START WITH the lines feeding high risk areas. In the end it's MUCH cheaper than letting entire towns burn to the ground, no?
In the end it's MUCH cheaper than continually trying to martial a herculean army to fight these fires year in and year out.
For less than those two combined costs, we can bury residential feeds to high risk burn area neighborhoods.

It's just simple risk management.

It may be simple, but what is it going to cost?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It may be simple, but what is it going to cost?

You're asking me to come up with figures that experts pay good money for, and I don't have those figures.
It's just a hunch but I suspect that in the end it would wind up costing far less than another two or three years of giant wildfires however.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's being said that costs from the Camp fire alone will exceed $6.8 to seven billion dollars.

That's just the initial ESTIMATES for the one fire alone.
Do you think it will cost more than seven billion to bury some residential power lines to high risk burn neighborhoods?

 

[azgreg]

Good ideas.

Now, what do you estimate the cost of putting all of America's power lines underground would run to?

Easily a couple of hundred.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's being said that costs from the Camp fire alone will exceed $6.8 to seven billion dollars.

That's just the initial ESTIMATES for the one fire alone.
Do you think it will cost more than seven billion to bury some residential power lines to high risk burn neighborhoods?

Honestly I have absolutely no idea what the proposal would cost so I simply can't say if it would be more, or less, expensive than the current situation.

If you think that it would be less expensive than the current situation, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some data.

Absent data, then the best that either one of us could say is "If burying the power lines would cost less than the damage done by the fires, then let's bury the power lines BUT if not, let's not." PROVIDED that we restrict ourselves to the economics of the situation.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Honestly I have absolutely no idea what the proposal would cost so I simply can't say if it would be more, or less, expensive than the current situation.

If you think that it would be less expensive than the current situation, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some data.

Absent data, then the best that either one of us could say is "If burying the power lines would cost less than the damage done by the fires, then let's bury the power lines BUT if not, let's not." PROVIDED that we restrict ourselves to the economics of the situation.

The best I can do is say with confidence that I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that it would cost even a FRACTION of the 6.8 billion dollars that these fires have cost so far this year.

I think I am probably in very good company with that statement.

PS: The "economics of the situation" by all needs MUST also include FUTURE costs of FUTURE wildfires of this scale, because given this sort of recalcitrance to change, count on them happening again, and again, and again.

 

[azgreg]

According to this older CNN article it can cost in the neighborhood of $1 mil per mile.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/opinion/kury-buried-line-pitfalls/index.html

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

According to this older CNN article it can cost in the neighborhood of $1 mil per mile.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/opinion/kury-buried-line-pitfalls/index.html

From the article:

"Burying power lines costs roughly $1 million per mile, but the geography or population density of the service area can halve this cost or triple it."

We already know that these high risk burn areas do not get anything like the snow or rainfall that communities out East do.
And still, I suspect this is going to be explored in short order by the state, and we'll be seeing cost estimates soon.

I'm willing to bet it won't be anywhere near seven billion dollars.

Also, we should consider ideas like decentralization of residential power generation as well.
Large sprawling central utilities make sense in metro areas, but these burn areas are hardly what one would call "metro". Most of them are semi-rural, outlying suburban or even exurban in their geography and demographics.

The fires affect much larger areas but they often start in relatively remote outposts.
Again, I am talking about STARTING WITH these outlying areas with lots of high fire danger brushy growth.
I am NOT talking about replacing every single power feed in America, that's a total exaggeration.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The best I can do is say with confidence that I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that it would cost even a FRACTION of the 6.8 billion dollars that these fires have cost so far this year.

I think I am probably in very good company with that statement.

PS: The "economics of the situation" by all needs MUST also include FUTURE costs of FUTURE wildfires of this scale, because given this sort of recalcitrance to change, count on them happening again, and again, and again.

At an average of $5,000,000 per mile and with around 134,000 miles of overhead lines of one voltage or another in jut Northern and Central California, that works out to around $670,000,000,000. Taking a wild swan dive on cost and dividing that by 2 means that it would cost roughly 50 times what the fire damage was (and might prevent [being highly optimistic] 10% of the fires).

On the other hand, you are very likely to be in good company to say that it wouldn't.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

At an average of $5,000,000 per mile and with around 134,000 miles of overhead lines of one voltage or another in jut Northern and Central California, that works out to around $670,000,000,000. Taking a wild swan dive on cost and dividing that by 2 means that it would cost roughly 50 times what the fire damage was (and might prevent [being highly optimistic] 10% of the fires).

On the other hand, you are very likely to be in good company to say that it wouldn't.

Your figures are off, it's actually closer to a million dollars a mile.
By the way, who here ever suggested undergrounding every single square inch of the state?
I'm just thinking it might be wise in the high fire danger areas, not the entire state.

One thing's for certain however. Even if it turned out to not be economically feasible to sink electric utility lines in high risk areas, we still need to explore solutions. Another solution might be to max out the flexibility of the electrical infrastructure in these areas by subsidizing residential solar and storage capabilities, or to combine subsidized residential solar and co-generation capabilities, so that utilities can power down during high risk days while these neighborhoods switch to local power for the duration.

If there's a huge risk of utility lines snapping and starting massive wildfires, switch off the power till the high risk event is over, and the local neighborhoods can run on gennie and solar till the utilities come back online in a day or so.
If you choose to live in these remote areas, you should accept that having alternate power schemes is a fact of life.
I'm not out to win a debate, I'm trying to explore solutions.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Your figures are off, it's actually closer to a million dollars a mile.
By the way, who here ever suggested undergrounding every single square inch of the state?
I'm just thinking it might be wise in the high fire danger areas, not the entire state.

One thing's for certain however. Even if it turned out to not be economically feasible to sink electric utility lines in high risk areas, we still need to explore solutions. Another solution might be to max out the flexibility of the electrical infrastructure in these areas by subsidizing residential solar and storage capabilities, or to combine subsidized residential solar and co-generation capabilities, so that utilities can power down during high risk days while these neighborhoods switch to local power for the duration.

If there's a huge risk of utility lines snapping and starting massive wildfires, switch off the power till the high risk event is over, and the local neighborhoods can run on gennie and solar till the utilities come back online in a day or so.
If you choose to live in these remote areas, you should accept that having alternate power schemes is a fact of life.
I'm not out to win a debate, I'm trying to explore solutions.

I like your supplementary measures.

However, that $1,000,000 per mile cost is for the areas where access is easy. Out in the forests, access isn't quite so easy (and the commutes are horrid).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I like your supplementary measures.

However, that $1,000,000 per mile cost is for the areas where access is easy. Out in the forests, access isn't quite so easy (and the commutes are horrid).

Interestingly, a good many folks in those "horrid" communities are fans of going off grid to some extent.
I appreciate that last mile backhaul is expensive, but apparently as we are learning, so is centralized electric utility service.

If the fires are being caused mostly by failures of last mile HV backhaul to these remote areas, then it is incumbent upon the utility to either make those last mile backhauls failure proof (doubtful) or restrict service on days where the risk is thought to be high.
That means that residents in these remote areas must accept a certain responsibility for generating their own local power on those days.

We need to start pondering the wisdom of the entire concept of centralized electric utilities for outlying regions where high fire danger is an established risk factor. There's no large heavy industries in the wilderness areas, so the overwhelming majority of customers are either small business or residential.

Last but not least, it is well past time we started rethinking the entire concept of how we use our electricity in a residential and small business setting. In the old days, when incandescent lights, vacuum tube electronics and heavy high current electrical motors did the majority of the work, it was necessary to transmit 120 volts AC straight into the home.

Today, LED lighting is set to take over as the dominant means of illuminating most homes, sales are skyrocketing and prices are dropping.
Televisions, computers, stereo systems and office equipment almost all seem to run off "wall wart" style power supplies, which deliver anywhere from 5 to 24 volts DC, with the majority being 5 volt and 12 volt. Even on equipment which has a mains plug going directly into the chassis, the first stop is a power supply that drops everything to 5 and 12 volts DC.

Instead of running all these wall warts continuously in "standby" mode and gurgling down 120 VAC only to step it down and rectify it anyway, we should be manufacturing these devices with the option to be powered directly by these low voltage DC power schemes directly from the wall.

That is to say, the common household electrical outlet should not only consist of the typical 120 volt 3-prong AC outlet but also several USB and 12 volt polarized connections as well.

The 12 VDC concept is rather new, I admit, but USB from the wall is becoming almost commonplace right now.
It isn't much of a step to also supply a healthy 10 amp 15 volt DC tap, which almost any 12 volt device will be perfectly happy with.

If we start designing our dwellings with this in mind, adding off grid flexibility almost becomes a no brainer because it's not difficult to put a few solar panels together for 5 and 12 volt applications. We're wasting an incredible amount of energy making it 120 volts AC only to step it back down to what most of these devices run on to begin with.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

A side note:

To illustrate how long we've actually been living in a twelve volt DC world...



The guy with the 70's porn stache and the 1974 Dodge Tradesman van is me in 1981.
I hated the car radio that came installed with the van and decided to mount a small home stereo receiver on top of the "dog house" (engine cover) instead. I opened the case, disconnected the AC transformer and connected 12 volts DC directly to the red and black wires coming off the diodes.
Bingo, instant home stereo receiver operating in a pimp van, complete with the home speakers nestled in the back.
I did the same for the home stereo cassette deck mounted in the console behind the dog house.

Ran it that way for three years.

Most everything electronic that we use has been able to run directly off DC power for years, ever since solid state took over.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

A side note:

To illustrate how long we've actually been living in a twelve volt DC world...

View attachment 67244715

The guy with the 70's porn stache and the 1974 Dodge Tradesman van is me in 1981.
I hated the car radio that came installed with the van and decided to mount a small home stereo receiver on top of the "dog house" (engine cover) instead. I opened the case, disconnected the AC transformer and connected 12 volts DC directly to the red and black wires coming off the diodes.
Bingo, instant home stereo receiver operating in a pimp van, complete with the home speakers nestled in the back.
I did the same for the home stereo cassette deck mounted in the console behind the dog house.

Ran it that way for three years.

Most everything electronic that we use has been able to run directly off DC power for years, ever since solid state took over.

Given the research that is available, anything that gets us away from 60 cycle AC is a good thing.

AC is good for moving electricity long distances (whereas DC simply kills people if you try to use it for that) but there is absolutely nothing that says that the power couldn't come to the outside of the house as AC and then get rectified there.

50 cycles (the European standard) has less adverse effect on the human nervous system than 60 cycles does (it's just more expensive to manufacture the equipment).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

but there is absolutely nothing that says that the power couldn't come to the outside of the house as AC and then get rectified there.

Seems to me that would be the smartest thing to do. We still need the 120 VAC for washing machines, refrigerators and what not, and air conditioners, clothes dryers and electric ovens all run on 220.
Nothing else needs to run on it however. Even the LED bulbs all contain a rectifier and step down transformer inside the bulb.
Eliminating that makes the bulbs cheaper, much cheaper, and then you can get away with Class 2 wiring for your lighting fixtures.

So if every home had a high capacity step down and rectifier stage, then you could pipe all the 5VDC and 12-24 VDC lines piggybacked next to the relatively few 120 VAC outlets you'd still need.

The only thing missing is an agreed upon standard for 12-24 volts DC but I already know what would be ideal, because it is already accepted in most of the industries that already use that voltage.

XLR 4.

Its cousin, the XLR 3, is already a professional standard for audio.

 

[What if...?]

Clearing out dead trees, fire lanes and selected burns - like those states that actually manage their forests do.

However, since California wants it all purely natural, the fires are natural and therefore should be celebrated as nature is doing what nature does to clean up forests. The fire fighters should be banned as they are acting in opposition to nature.

There's a other side to that story.

It would take building roads and damage to existing trees and other environmental elements to get the dead ones out.

In order for it to be profitable to do so.

I don't know what value those dead trees have anyway.

Is it even useful as lumber?

And here is the counter argument:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BBAB&usg=AOvVaw1XPjMZMSBGj6IeEmsS5z2w&ampcf=1

Looks like the donor class at work here again.