California is Burning (Again)

[LightRanger]

“Today: The Caples prescribed burn was declared a wildland fire on October 10 at approximately 1:30 pm. Fire managers made the decision due to unfavorable weather conditions and the inability to meet previously established objectives. This change allows for additional resources to assist in suppression from partners such as CalFire.

The Caples prescribed burn began as pile burning 10 days ago under favorable conditions following rain and snowstorms. This is part of a larger, multi-year forest restoration project. The goal of this project is to promote a healthy resilient forest by reintroducing fire to the landscape. In anticipation of the upcoming strong winds, fire managers began building fireline and conducting firing operations to secure the fire perimeter. Unfavorable conditions over the past few days prevented crews from being able to complete the firing operations contributed to the incident being declared a wildland fire”

Yah. Made the call at 1:30 after they issued the daily report. That's what confused me. Thanks for info.

Can smell it down the hill right now.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[LightRanger]

While it's true that people building in these areas knew of the elevated fire risk, same as folks who build in a flood plane enticed by much lower property costs.. It's also true that the utility companies have an obligation to mitigate the risks associated with the delivery of their products in a reasonable manner.

It's also true that climate change is raising these risks and all that matters there, all the proof you need, is to see how the insurance company actuaries reflect these elevated risks in premiums.. or not even insuring them at all so the government steps in like they do with National Flood Insurance. If they don't have it already, look for National Fire Insurance coming to these areas if people keep rebuilding there after disaster after disaster.. Or is national subsidized insurance only for rich people who can afford million dollar plus beach houses??

We have the California Fair Plan now as an insurer of last resort. You're not gonna see a national program under this administration...

FWIW, I think we need a bridge to deal with all the folks who've been there for a long time and before these megafires started blowing up worse than they used to.

Then we need a hard conversation about building moratoria in certain places and, if not that, then ironclad codes and space requirements. In Paradise, most of the homes that survived were newer and met updated code requirements. In fact, I've heard reports of some newer homes making it through while the surrounding homes burnt to the ground.

We should also break up PG&E.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[hercule33]

The problem is a bit more tricky than this. Read up on the Tennessee Valley Authority Act and the history there. The CA PUC pretty much mandates that people get power somehow, and the TVA act from the 30's is a bit of a hammer that PG&E could be taken over by the govt if they are found to be discriminating against a class of citizens (poorer rural folks). Combine this with land use policy that allows people to build and rebuild in fire traps, poor forest management where the utility crosses through, and saddling the utility with UNLIMITED FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY in the event of a fire, and what is a business to do? How can PG&E mitigate their risk? Shut it down and fly the bird at the public.

The State has backed the power companies into a corner. This is the only smart business move here.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TGR Forums mobile app

I appreciate your points but still disagree. First, I am 100% in favor of unlimited financial and criminal liability for utilities if they are found negligent. I believe that this is a necessary deterrent and in the case of PGE it still was not enough.

The fact that there are laws that against discriminating against a class of citizens just shows how often the utilities will do a money grab. It does not give them give them reason to be negligent in terms of safety. If people in a fire trap want power, they can go the CA PUC and demand power. The PUC can work with PGE and those communities on a solution that is not negligent and does not ignore safety. All PGE customers may have to pay more to safely give them power or maybe those residence will get some subsidies to get solar power.

I don’t think that PGE is the victim here. They were not preaching about the possible fire dangers and taking steps to mitigate them, including getting the forest service to help. Quite to the contrary, they were found negligent in some aspects. Risk mitigation is a part of every business and if PGE can’t mitigate their risks quite simply they shouldn’t be in the utility business. In conclusion, I don’t think it’s asking too much for utilities to safely deliver their power.

[DJSapp]

I appreciate your points but still disagree. First, I am 100% in favor of unlimited financial and criminal liability for utilities if they are found negligent. I believe that this is a necessary deterrent and in the case of PGE it still was not enough.

The fact that there are laws that against discriminating against a class of citizens just shows how often the utilities will do a money grab. It does not give them give them reason to be negligent in terms of safety. If people in a fire trap want power, they can go the CA PUC and demand power. The PUC can work with PGE and those communities on a solution that is not negligent and does not ignore safety. All PGE customers may have to pay more to safely give them power or maybe those residence will get some subsidies to get solar power.

I don’t think that PGE is the victim here. They were not preaching about the possible fire dangers and taking steps to mitigate them, including getting the forest service to help. Quite to the contrary, they were found negligent in some aspects. Risk mitigation is a part of every business and if PGE can’t mitigate their risks quite simply they shouldn’t be in the utility business. In conclusion, I don’t think it’s asking too much for utilities to safely deliver their power.

Even attempting to defend the forest policy of the last 50+ years is laughable, and not all of the recent megafires were started from electrical issues.

Both sides bear fault for sure, but the punishment only falls to the utility. That is not right.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TGR Forums mobile app

[SumJongGuy]

Does anyone have a realistic plan to deliver electricity to these areas in a significantly safer manner? I can't imagine the astronomical cost to bury those high transmission lines across hundreds and hundreds of miles in that rugged terrain.

[LightRanger]

Does anyone have a realistic plan to deliver electricity to these areas in a significantly safer manner? I can't imagine the astronomical cost to bury those high transmission lines across hundreds and hundreds of miles in that rugged terrain.

See Michael Wara link in post #443.

In related news, this shit is more than just an inconvenience to some people...
https://abc7news.com/norcal-man-depe...-says/5611878/

[bodywhomper]

Still no power or telecom. In town picking up kid from school.

Want to point out a few things stated before:
-There have been several big wildfires in CA that have burned into and caused substantial damage to areas currently and previously not considered WUI or mapped as in a designated “very high” or “high” fire hazard severity zone by the State.

-According to the LA Times, 25% of the states population lives in areas mapped as “very high” or “high” fire hazard severity zone by the State.

-in regards to insurance, with the above #’s, I think that the state needs to start a state fire insurance program, similar to the NFIP but better, and not the same as the CA Fair Plan. State legislatures are discussing pulling out of the NFIP in favor of a state FIP, and there are plenty less population in the floodplain in CA that’s the fire hazard areas.

-something that needs to be recalled about PGE is the decades of deferred maintenance of their easements and deferred maintenance of their equipment.

- I recently heard that the Tahoe basin will have a reduced fire hazard predicted in the future, I think it’s 2050... I’m pretty sure that’s due to the forecast of a catastrophic fire in the basin.

Pge has now identified 23 spots so far through inspections where their system needs work before re-energizing some circuits.

[hercule33]

Even attempting to defend the forest policy of the last 50+ years is laughable, and not all of the recent megafires were started from electrical issues.

Both sides bear fault for sure, but the punishment only falls to the utility. That is not right.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TGR Forums mobile app

I think it’s exact right. PGE is ultimately responsible. Show me the documents where PGE entered into agreement with the Forest Service and the Forest Service didn’t do its part. Ultimately power safety falls on PGE and not the Forest service. I am not saying that the Forest Service is perfect but if PGE can’t safely deliver power they shouldn’t be in the utility business.

[hercule33]

Does anyone have a realistic plan to deliver electricity to these areas in a significantly safer manner? I can't imagine the astronomical cost to bury those high transmission lines across hundreds and hundreds of miles in that rugged terrain.

I think you hit the main point and that’s who is going to pay for safe electricity for those areas. Are the residents going to pay the costs or how will it be shared? A tough question for sure, that I don’t know the answer to.

[teledad]

According to pge.com we're supposed to get power back Sunday night.

Note that the problem isn't just providing power to homes in "fire traps", it's all the places where transmission lines are running through fire prone areas. Unless you want to say that people should only live within a few miles of a generation plant.

I bet electricians are going to be busy installing transfer switches for a while. Including at my house.

[hercule33]

See Michael Wara link in post #443.

In related news, this shit is more than just an inconvenience to some people...
https://abc7news.com/norcal-man-depe...-says/5611878/

It would be interesting if PGE had a QOS agreement with its customers. They would only be allowed a certain amount of outages before they would have to pay fines. Costs of power would be higher but deaths like this in theory could be reduced.

[neufox47]

[QUOTE=bodywhomper;5778049]

-in regards to insurance, with the above #’s, I think that the state needs to start a state fire insurance program, similar to the NFIP but better, and not the same as the CA Fair Plan. State legislatures are discussing pulling out of the NFIP in favor of a state FIP, and there are plenty less population in the floodplain in CA that’s the fire hazard areas.

/QUOTE]

As someone who works in the industry, insurance per risk $ has never been cheaper. Several insurers saw indemnity exceed total premiums two years in a row, never mind overhead and costs to adjust. Unless you change the way claims are paid or have the taxpayers subsidize it, there’s no way you are making that math work.

I got a quote for fire only from the CA fair plan for shitty coverage, $2300 premium, then I needed another policy for $800 / year for everything else. Another private insurer gave me an all risks plan, excluding flood and earthquake of course, with guaranteed replacement cost for $1500.

[old goat]

I think that is incorrect. Replacing / upgrading equipment is PGEs primary profit maker

As I understand it, the PUC allows PGE to bill customers for maintenance and upgrade on a cost plus basis, but there is little enforcement to see that the work is done. This is true for various utilities large and small around the state. So yes, maintenance is a profit center but that doesn't mean they're doing maintenance.

[PB]

See Michael Wara link in post #443.

In related news, this shit is more than just an inconvenience to some people...
https://abc7news.com/norcal-man-depe...-says/5611878/

Was there an update??? Because this link now says that the death was NOT attributable to the power outage.

[LightRanger]

Was there an update??? Because this link now says that the death was NOT attributable to the power outage.

Yep. No cause when I posted. Just said TOD was approximately 15 minutes after the power went out.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[bodywhomper]

or have the taxpayers subsidize it.

^^that is what I am talking about....

Isn’t that how NFIP was designed to work in a more ideal world, ie high # of buy-in.

[evdog]

Note that the problem isn't just providing power to homes in "fire traps", it's all the places where transmission lines are running through fire prone areas. Unless you want to say that people should only live within a few miles of a generation plant.

Dealing with utility caused fires is definitely important. But we might avoid one of those fires with endless investment in undergrounding transmission lines, localizing power grids and upgrading to solar/battery capability only to have an equally destructive fire caused by something else: lightning, an illegal campfire, fireworks, faulty equipment, discarded cigarette, shooting, any number of other stupid acts or straight up arson. People as a society need to really start taking fire safety seriously. I camp often and almost always see people with fires going during fire bans, but almost never see patrols or enforcement. Call them on it and you get told to fuck off. Constantly see cigarettes thrown out of cars. Education and enforcement have to become priorities, with real penalties not slaps on the wrist. And at the same time fuel reduction needs to be ramped up big time. $250M or whatever CA has upped the budget too won't get far in a state this big. This has to be addressed from all angles. Except climate change, because we all know that doesn't exist.

Even with huge fires raging all over the state the last couple years I'd go camping and see people with raging campfires during fire bans. No sign of enforcement. Or see people throwing cigarettes out their windows.

[lepistoir]

-something that needs to be recalled about PGE is the decades of deferred maintenance of their easements and deferred maintenance of their equipment.

The utilities should just be owned and controlled democratically by the rate payers. Enough of this privatization dogma. PG&E was super efficient at putting off maintenance so they could pay dividends and PR companies.
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/11/...wn-california/

- I recently heard that the Tahoe basin will have a reduced fire hazard predicted in the future, I think it’s 2050... I’m pretty sure that’s due to the forecast of a catastrophic fire in the basin.

Great. Hoping that the NE corner of the lake is spared. Usually prevailing winds push fire away from us, but this recent wind event would have brought anything starting along the Brockway - Rose ridgeline straight down and torched us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shakyknees]

“Today: The Caples prescribed burn was declared a wildland fire on October 10 at approximately 1:30 pm. Fire managers made the decision due to unfavorable weather conditions and the inability to meet previously established objectives. This change allows for additional resources to assist in suppression from partners such as CalFire.

The Caples prescribed burn began as pile burning 10 days ago under favorable conditions following rain and snowstorms. This is part of a larger, multi-year forest restoration project. The goal of this project is to promote a healthy resilient forest by reintroducing fire to the landscape. In anticipation of the upcoming strong winds, fire managers began building fireline and conducting firing operations to secure the fire perimeter. Unfavorable conditions over the past few days prevented crews from being able to complete the firing operations contributed to the incident being declared a wildland fire”

Thanks for this info; I've been wondering where the smoke in South Lake was coming from; the word I heard was "controlled burn"; today seemed like more smoke than usual from a controlled burn. Sounds like this Caples fire is the culprit. All that matters now is controlling the fire directly upwind of our home, prayers and gratitude to the firefighters.

[Meadow Skipper]

Why the PG&E Blackouts Spared California's Big Tech HQs

[stalefish3169]

Does anyone have a realistic plan to deliver electricity to these areas in a significantly safer manner? I can't imagine the astronomical cost to bury those high transmission lines across hundreds and hundreds of miles in that rugged terrain.

I work in the powerline vegetation management industry and recently attended the West Coast Utility Commissions Wildfire Dialogue. IIRC, they stated something like 90%+ of electrical utility fires are started from distribution circuits. From my point of view, I don't see much transmission going underground anytime soon.




Videos are available here if anyone wants to watch.

"Tracking the Changing Risk": https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019081026

"Making Risk-Based Changes to the System": https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019081027

"Managing the Financial Risks": https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019081028

"Expanding Public Safety Coordination": https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019081029





9:00 – 9:15

Welcome & Introductory Remarks by Commissioner Letha Tawney, Oregon Public Utilities Commission



9:15-10:30

Panel #1: Tracking the changing risk

How is climate change impacting potential wildfire areas and are current risk mapping practices sufficient?



· Moderator: Chair Dave Danner, Washington Utilities Transportation Commission

· Dr. Crystal Raymond, Climate Adaptation Specialist, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group

· Dr. Chris Dunn, Research Associate, Oregon State University

· Kacey KC, State Forester Firewarden, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada Division of Forestry



10:30-12:00

Panel #2: Making risk-based changes to the system

How can utilities effectively prioritize risk mitigation efforts, and what issues or barriers develop for utilities?



· Moderator: Chair David M. Morton, British Columbia Utilities Commission

· Robin Furrer, Vice President of Transmission and Field Services, Bonneville Power Administration

· Mike Guite, Manager of Transmission Sustainment Planning Group, BC Hydro

· Brian D’Agostino, Director of Fire Science and Climate Adaptation, San Diego Gas & Electric

· Koko Tomassian, Safety Enforcement Division, California Public Utilities Commission



12:00-1:30

Lunch Break

Please note that lunch is not provided. Attendees are encouraged to visit any of the many local restaurants at or near the Oregon Convention Center.



1:30-2:45

Panel #3: Expanding public safety coordination

What factors should be considered to ensure de-energization does not increase public safety risks now that transportation, communication and other essential services are more reliant on electricity?



· Moderator: Commissioner Hayley Williamson, Nevada Public Utilities Commission

· Anthony Noll, Safety and Enforcement Division, California Public Utilities Commission

· Ronda Strauch, Climate Change Research and Adaptation Advisor, Seattle City Light

· David Lucas, Vice President, Transmission and Distribution Operations, Pacific Power

· Derek Rinn, Regional Manager of Network Services, FortisBC





2:45-3:00

Break



3:00-4:15

Panel #4: Managing the financial risks

What are the financial tools available for utilities to mitigate ratepayer risk and keep the cost of providing service affordable? Are these tools robust enough for the scale of possible losses?



· Moderator: Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen, California Public Utilities Commission

· Maria Pope, CEO, Portland General Electric

· Richard Sedano, President and CEO, Regulatory Assistance Project





4:15-4:30

Closing Remarks by Commissioner Letha Tawney, Oregon






Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using TGR Forums mobile app

[MTT]

I think it’s exact right. PGE is ultimately responsible. Show me the documents where PGE entered into agreement with the Forest Service and the Forest Service didn’t do its part. Ultimately power safety falls on PGE and not the Forest service. I am not saying that the Forest Service is perfect but if PGE can’t safely deliver power they shouldn’t be in the utility business.

I am curious, did the power lines become more dangerous, or did the landscape under them become more prone to fire?

[bodywhomper]

stalefish, thanks for sharing that information.

Concerns about transmission line vulnerability is what caused a lot of the extent and length of time for the piss-piss in CA. My recent memory in Nor CA is that several fires were caused by transmission system. Off the top of my head: the initial fire from the Camp Fire and the Butte Fire in Calaveras and Amador Counties.

I am curious, did the power lines become more dangerous, or did the landscape under them become more prone to fire?

It’s both.

[~mikey b]

in real news

the Caples Fire got away from the FS this week - what started out as a prescribed fire has been reclassified as a wildland fire - a Type 3 IMT is on it



https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/6622/

[Meadow Skipper]

I am curious, did the power lines become more dangerous, or did the landscape under them become more prone to fire?

Both, but especially the latter. Aging infrastructure, and overgrown rights of way. And thirdly climate change.