San Jose to be exact. Talk about a mess with traffic up and down the Bay Area.

eep.

Hot with no electricity.
Trouble could start among the public.
There will be a run on gas stations for cars and generators.
A run on groceries that don't require electricity just to eat.
It could get ugly.

idiots, what were they thinking.

Many of the large fires in California have been started by arching power lines including the Camp fire which killed 85 and destroyed the town of Paradise, even with the high winds the power wasn't shut off and look what happened. It just isn't worth it.

a few months ago

Otherwise it's,

"We won't let you raise rates to upgrade lines."

"If there's a problem because of the condition of the lines, you will be held fully responsible."

"We will not let you not use the lines."

Basically, it's saying the company *must* do something it knows is hazardous, and then because it knowingly does something hazardous it is criminally and financially liable, while saying that it cannot take steps necessary to remove the hazard.

If it were a math equation, it would be called "overdetermined." Others might call it a catch-22.

There's the precedent of this happening in San Diego, but, you know, San Diego isn't all that important.

in the Sacramento and SF Bay Area. The operative words are "May shut power".

What's odd is the San Francisco Chronicle using the word 'unprecedented' when this is the second season we've received these warnings, but at the end of the day, only hilly wooded regions actually get shut down.

but very little was shut down because much of the winds never developed, except in higher elevations.

that all above ground power lines should be moved underground.

as the cost of doing business and continuing to be allowed to operate in the state.

they will pass the debt onto the ratepayers. And the state will let them do it if the alternative is the power company going out of business.

which is exactly what the solution would require. As long as politicians are most interested in "low balling" the rates .. the structure stays basically the same (or moves forward in minor increments).

But that would entail what would probably be the biggest public works project in the history of the state, if not the USA. And having things underground increases the cost of maintaining, repairing and upgrading the system.

Underground power will certainly reduce the number of ignition points. However, the cost of doing this would be huge, but possibly worth it in the long run.

One thing to note: though it's safer to have underground power that doesn't mean underground lines don't get damaged when fire does rip through the area. They do get damaged, sometimes badly, especially if the fire goes through a housing development.

Overall, I'm still on board with underground power lines.

they are worried about grid tie overhead lines

Just wondering!

which is in the heart of Silicon Valley. It's not supposed to be that hot here on Wednesday and Thursday - mid 70's - but the danger factor seems to be the wind. Still, I work from home, and if I lose power, it will suck.

In the early 60's to 1973.

This would be unprecedented.

in response to losing home power?

How many more barbeques will be lit up to cook food? How many fireplaces will be lit?

Point being you may very well be increasing the probability that a fire will start by OTHER means ... by turning off people's electrical.

Course I suppose such fires wouldn't be PG&E's responsibility, so ...

Shutting off electricity will dramatically REDUCE the chances of a fire ignition...even with barbecues. Oh, and it's too hot for fireplaces anyway. It's critical that the power be turned off in areas experiencing the high northeast winds that are forecast.

This is largely about them reducing their liability for their poorly maintained infrastructure starting a fire.

Shutting off the electricity in high wildfire risk zones is exactly what PG&E should be doing in the forecast conditions for Wednesday and Thursday. Many people wished they'd have done that two years ago.

stopping fires and saving lives is a priority. But .... As on ongoing "policy" .. how many days out of the year are going to be "shut offs?" How many people will be effected? How many jobs idled? What is the drag on the economy (of one the most important in the nation)? What is the health cost to the population for interrupted service? What is the increased carbon imprint from all the private and backup generators that go into service?
(as a "one time" safety precaution this makes sense .. down the road for the next 3, 5, 20 years .. it doesn't seem like sensible "policy" at all)

Firstly, if more people and businesses adopted solar power it would go miles in alleviating the impact of outages. This is something we've already started on as a society. Let's provide more incentives to help people make the switch.

PG&E will have to also reconstruct its infrastructure to meet the demands of this new regimen of hotter and longer fire seasons. Additionally, we have to get serious about prescribed burns in our wild lands to match the natural fire frequency. This would require disincentives for building in particular zones, and even buying out people and businesses who are currently in those zones. These people and businesses scream and cry when prescribed burns happen. But they're just allowing ladder fuels to build up until all of us pay very dearly at a later date.

Most of all, though, I think the adoption of solar power will have the quickest and most enduring effect.

And grid-tied solar goes down when the grid goes down. If you want power, you need an off-grid or hybrid system, but batteries add thousands to each installation, and batteries need to be maintained and replaced over time.

I'm pricing a grid-tied system currently, with plans to upgrade to a hybrid system when more Power-Wall-like options are available in a decade. But I simply can't afford an off-grid system at the moment, and I'm pretty middle-class.

and find out how likely your area will be impacted

This does not mean that all of Northern California will be impacted, and more likely in those areas where the risk is greatest