Wtf PG&E, a private utility company, has a liberal social agenda?!!! Lmao, that's a load of horseshit. Utilities are a part of the coalition of lobbyists trying to dismantle regulations in DC right now.

Also, I find it ridiculous that anyone is arguing in favor of Finland being even remotely comparable to California. Ok, to Europeans who don't understand California's climate, most of the state is considered to be most comparable to "Mediterranean" climates. There isn't a whole lot of extra moisture around. Finland is not comparably dry.

I'm also pretty sure the state of California does what it can to remove dead and dry plant life that may fuel fires. It's a lot of land, and most of Cali's forests are FEDERAL land. It's not the state's jurisdiction.

Also someone needs to tell Trump that California's 1st district fucking voted for him. That's the one that got hit the hardest by the wildfires this past year. Trump seems to be acting like a dick because he thinks the people affected aren't his "base". Yes they fucking are you mouth-breathing dolt. Not to mention that political affiliation should not prevent him from serving *ALL* Americans.

He seems to not be able to figure out the difference between the bay area and... well, the first district. That is not Nancy Pelosi land.

Jouhou wrote:

Wtf PG&E, a private utility company, has a liberal social agenda?!!! Lmao, that's a load of horseshit. Utilities are a part of the coalition of lobbyists trying to dismantle regulations in DC right now.

Really. So all those radio and TV ads paid for by PGE were all FAKE? Who knew.... Where do you live?

Jouhou wrote:

I'm also pretty sure the state of California does what it can to remove dead and dry plant life that may fuel fires. It's a lot of land, and most of Cali's forests are FEDERAL land. It's not the state's jurisdiction.

Actually no. As one example, there was a big ruckus because the state would not allow the logging of the dying pine forests, infested with bark beetles.

The federal government manages 57 percent of the forests in California, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. The state manages 2 percent. Private owners are responsible for 39 percent. The state and counties control the logging activities of that 39%. The tree-huggers have significant influence in those decisions.

The state may have changed more recently, judging by this report...
FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- The U.S. Forest Service announced that an historic 129 million trees on 8.9 million acres have died due to drought and bark beetles in the state of California. The dead trees continue to pose a hazard, especially in the central and southern Sierra Nevada, they say.

The U.S. Forest Service said even though there were record rains last winter, the effects of five consecutive years of severe drought, bark beetle infestation, and rising temperatures have contributed to the historic levels of trees dying.

"The number of dead and dying trees has continued to rise, along with the risks to communities and firefighters if a wildfire breaks out in these areas," said Randy Moore, Regional Forester of the U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. "It is apparent from our survey flights this year that California's trees have not yet recovered from the drought, and remain vulnerable to beetle attacks and increased wildfire threat. The Forest Service will continue to focus on mitigating hazard trees and thinning overly dense forests so they are healthier and better able to survive stressors like this in the future."

So far, California's Tree Mortality Task Force (TMTF) has felled or removed over 860,000 dead trees. The TMTF is made up of more than 80 local, state and federal agencies and private utility companies. The forest service says they are using a triage approach to removing the dead trees by focusing their efforts on high hazard areas. The U.S. Forest Service and Cal Fire are also increasing the pace and scale of prescribed burns to reduce dense areas of dead trees.

Thanks for personally admitting that your above post claiming that we have the costliest electricity in the nation was wrong. Even if you did it with maximum whining and evading.

OK the towers are 100 years old, but I'm sure you would have been opposed to PG&E spending your precious money to replace them. So please don't whine about that.

Now that you get me into it there are much better sources of information than NBC Bay Area:
My local paper did a pretty good job.
https://www.marinij.com/2018/12/08/it-w ... e-probe-2/
The Sacramento Bee seems to suggest that the failure might have been caused by shooters exercising their second amendment rights. A couple of the towers were peppered with bullet holes.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/calif ... 89595.html

mham001 wrote:

[Really. So all those radio and TV ads paid for by PGE were all FAKE? Who knew.... Where do you live?

WTF? What ads are you talking about? Did they have some people of color in them?

salttee wrote:

Thanks for personally admitting that your above post claiming that we have the costliest electricity in the nation was wrong.

You must be stoned. Or never looked at your PGE bill.

salttee wrote:

OK the towers are 100 years old, but I'm sure you would have been opposed to PG&E spending your precious money to replace them. So please don't whine about that.

Please don't try to tell me what I might think. You are clueless.

salttee wrote:

Now that you get me into it there are much better sources of information than NBC Bay Area:

Sure there are, still better than your ignorant posts. Pretty rich of you to criticize.

mham001 wrote:

salttee wrote:

Thanks for personally admitting that your above post claiming that we have the costliest electricity in the nation was wrong.

You must be stoned. Or never looked at your PGE bill.

I really don't look at it, I haven't for years. It's on autopay. I get an E-mail once a month; I delete the E-mail.

I try not to get upset with the fact that I'm living in the 21st century.
I remember a time when everything was so much cheaper, homes were 20 grand or so...
But I also remember making $67.50 a month as a US Army Private E-1.

So all in all I have no complaints.

salttee wrote:

mham001 wrote:

salttee wrote:

Thanks for personally admitting that your above post claiming that we have the costliest electricity in the nation was wrong.

You must be stoned. Or never looked at your PGE bill.

I really don't look at it, I haven't for years. It's on autopay.

I try not to get upset with the fact that I'm living in the 21st century.
I remember a time when everything was so much cheaper, homes were 20 grand or so...
But I also remember making $67.50 a month as a US Army Private E-1.

So all in all I have no complaints.

Of course not, you are the 1% in Marin. That you don't look at your bills is quite telling. How would you know if you are conserving, DON'T YOU CONSERVE ENERGY?

mham001 wrote:

salttee wrote:

mham001 wrote:

You must be stoned. Or never looked at your PGE bill.

I really don't look at it, I haven't for years. It's on autopay.

I try not to get upset with the fact that I'm living in the 21st century.
I remember a time when everything was so much cheaper, homes were 20 grand or so...
But I also remember making $67.50 a month as a US Army Private E-1.

So all in all I have no complaints.

Of course not, you are the 1% in Marin.

Keep thinking that.

Being misinformed seems to be your forte.

From 2017 fire season....

Cal Fire blames PG&E for multiple North Bay Wildfires.
In an announcement that rocked the state’s largest utility, PG&E was found to be involved in causing multiple fatal fires that were part of the devastating Wine Country infernos in October, government investigators said Friday.

The embattled utility, which has been struggling to right itself since causing a fatal explosion in San Bruno in 2010, now is deemed to bear a measure of responsibility for blazes in Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, Humboldt, Butte and Lake counties because its equipment and facilities were involved in 12 of the fires, according to the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire. wildfireshttps://www.mercurynews.com/20 ... wildfires/

Ok really, New England has the highest regional electicity costs in the contiguous US due to the lack of any local resources to be exploited for energy. You can't BS me on that one. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

Also where are you heading these ads you speak of? You seem like the type to listen to AM rage radio. If they are running ads that are pro- "liberal" causes on that platform the goal is probably to get conservatives into a frothed up rage.

Also "southern and central Sierra nevada" is not the first congressional district, where the worst fires burned and the area Trump was making dick-headed comments about.

Jouhou wrote:

Ok really, New England has the highest regional electicity costs in the contiguous US due to the lack of any local resources to be exploited for energy. You can't BS me on that one. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

You seem and Saltee are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to prove me WRONG. That one says California is third highest (barely). Except whatever "Average Retail Price" means has no reality with what I see on my bills. Do I need to upload a copy? NOBODY in PGE land is paying $0.16/kWh retail (except those in assistance and that isn't exactly "retail"). It isn't happening. Period. But see for yourself... https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml

Jouhou wrote:

Also where are you heading these ads you speak of? You seem like the type to listen to AM rage radio. If they are running ads that are pro- "liberal" causes on that platform the goal is probably to get conservatives into a frothed up rage.

I don't listen to Am or talk radio anymore since KGO changed format. I'd explain all that (hardly "right-wing") but you wouldn't understand and I don't care. About that time, PGE was running extensive ads for some gay-rights initiative.

Jouhou wrote:

Also "southern and central Sierra nevada" is not the first congressional district, where the worst fires burned and the area Trump was making dick-headed comments about.

[/quote]

This is relevant to what?

mham001 wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Ok really, New England has the highest regional electicity costs in the contiguous US due to the lack of any local resources to be exploited for energy. You can't BS me on that one. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

You seem and Saltee are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to prove me WRONG. That one says California is third highest (barely). Except whatever "Average Retail Price" means has no reality with what I see on my bills. Do I need to upload a copy? NOBODY in PGE land is paying $0.16/kWh retail (except those in assistance and that isn't exactly "retail"). It isn't happening. Period. But see for yourself... https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml

Jouhou wrote:

Also where are you heading these ads you speak of? You seem like the type to listen to AM rage radio. If they are running ads that are pro- "liberal" causes on that platform the goal is probably to get conservatives into a frothed up rage.

I don't listen to Am or talk radio anymore since KGO changed format. I'd explain all that (hardly "right-wing") but you wouldn't understand and I don't care. About that time, PGE was running extensive ads for some gay-rights initiative.

Jouhou wrote:

Also "southern and central Sierra nevada" is not the first congressional district, where the worst fires burned and the area Trump was making dick-headed comments about.

This is relevant to what?[/quote]

Relevant to the point you are trying to prove. Also you are apparently more resistant to facts than I thought. California is Definitely not the third highest by the link posted. Its lower than all the New England states except for Vermont and Maine. Iirc Vermont's prices are lower because they import Canadian Hydro and Maine has wind and hydro.

Edit: I just realized you aren't talking about electricity prices. You're probably talking about electricity + transmission prices, which are charged separately on our bills here.

Jouhou wrote:

Also "southern and central Sierra nevada" is not the first congressional district, where the worst fires burned and the area Trump was making dick-headed comments about.

[/quote]

Relevant to the point you are trying to prove.

I really don't know what all comments Trump has made (or why you are focused on the first congressional district) but his general accusation does have some historical merit. That is all.

A very quick search 'california restricts logginb dead trees' turns up this on top from the San Francisco paper, just for example.... as you can see, there is plenty of opposition to cleaning up the forests.

The logging industry and some members of Congress have been spreading misinformation and fear of fire about dead trees in California’s forests in order to promote a weakening of environmental laws and increased logging on national forests. Dead trees are not an end to a forest but are part of the renewal cycle of life and death that rejuvenates forest ecosystems.

There is a Republican-led effort to pass two similar logging measures — S3085, which already passed the House last year, and the Wildfire Budgeting, Response, and Forest Management Act of 2016, circulating in the Senate — both of which would eliminate most environmental analysis of the substantial impacts to fish, wildlife and water quality from clear-cutting both “snags” (dead trees) and live old trees, while reducing public participation and increasing taxpayer-subsidized logging.

Similarly, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has proposed spending tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to subsidize clear-cutting of more than 5 million snags on three national forests in California and has promoted the extreme step of eliminating the long-standing ban on exporting timber from public forest lands. Feinstein would like taxpayers to spend their hard-earned dollars paying to clear-cut trees in our national forests so they can be exported to developers in China.

But these arguments have no basis in sound science or stewardship of our public lands.

Logging proponents have described the patches of snags, resulting from either fire or drought and native bark beetle cycles, as devastation and loss. But last fall, more than 250 scientists sent a letter to Congress stating that these areas of “snag forest habitat” are “ecological treasures rather than ecological catastrophes” because they support levels of plants and wildlife comparable to old-growth forests. Many species are rare and imperiled, such as the black-backed woodpecker that depends on this unique habitat. Historically, snag forest habitat made up between 15 percent and 20 percent of our forests, while today it makes up less than 5 percent. Dead trees are the most important parts of a healthy forest as they anchor soils thus preventing erosion, shade new seedlings from intense sunlight and provide habitat for scores of insect-eating bats, birds and small mammals.

Supporters of the logging bills have repeatedly claimed that forests with high levels of snags will burn more intensely, a notion that has been soundly debunked by peer-reviewed scientific studies. A comprehensive study recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that their “results refute the assumption that increased bark beetle activity has increased area burned.” Another study found that high snag densities in forests tend to “reduce the severity of subsequent wildfires” as most of the living flammable material was removed by insects.

Feinstein points to the Blue Cut and Soberanes fires, but fails to mention the Blue Cut Fire occurred in grassland and chaparral, not forest, and the forested portion of the Soberanes Fire had few or no snags, according to the U.S. Forest Service’s own mapping.

While Feinstein has promoted logging of millions of snags on public lands ostensibly to protect human communities and infrastructure, only a small subset of these dead trees are within falling distance of homes, roads or power lines. We should focus taxpayer dollars on “defensible space” within 100 feet of homes, rather than destructive logging in remote forests.

We need policies based on science, not fear and economic opportunism.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/ope ... 698896.php

Jouhou wrote:

Also you are apparently more resistant to facts than I thought. California is Definitely not the third highest by the link posted. Its lower than all the New England states except for Vermont and Maine. Iirc Vermont's prices are lower because they import Canadian Hydro and Maine has wind and hydro.

Sorry, I missed Mass and Rhode Island. Unlike you and Saltee, I won't just go ahead and lie about it. And like I said, $.016/kWh does not reflect reality in PGE land. Why don't you just go to the PGE page I linked?

I just missed you with my edit. Also their pricing scheme (PGE) doesn't mean much without knowing what the services indicated are.

Jouhou wrote:

I just missed you with my edit. Also their pricing scheme (PGE) doesn't mean much without knowing what the services indicated are.

What other services? They send electrons to my house. What else is there?

mham001 wrote:

see for yourself... https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml

And people should understand that the "Master Meter" column does not apply for rates that individual home owners pay.

https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/y ... lords.page

Ahh! Found i! This link should be much better for showing PGE residential rate: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/ ... DS_E-1.pdf

Tugg

mham001 wrote:

The embattled utility, which has been struggling to right itself since causing a fatal explosion in San Bruno in 2010, now is deemed to bear a measure of responsibility for blazes in Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, Humboldt, Butte and Lake counties because its equipment and facilities were involved in 12 of the fires, according to the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire. wildfireshttps://www.mercurynews.com/20 ... wildfires/

My question would be with all the claimed 100,000's of solar panel generators selling their excess energy to PG&E why they are not held in Vicarious Liability. How the heck are they dodging their liability here and shifting it to PG&E?

Confiscating hundreds of thousands of homes and personal property of the electrical generators should be first on the list since they want to be electrical wholesalers.

Okie

Okie wrote:

mham001 wrote:

The embattled utility, which has been struggling to right itself since causing a fatal explosion in San Bruno in 2010, now is deemed to bear a measure of responsibility for blazes in Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, Humboldt, Butte and Lake counties because its equipment and facilities were involved in 12 of the fires, according to the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire. wildfireshttps://www.mercurynews.com/20 ... wildfires/

My question would be with all the claimed 100,000's of solar panel generators selling their excess energy to PG&E why they are not held in Vicarious Liability. How the heck are they dodging their liability here and shifting it to PG&E?

Confiscating hundreds of thousands of homes and personal property of the electrical generators should be first on the list since they want to be electrical wholesalers.

Okie

Because PGE is solely responsible for the transmission lines into the house. It is illegal to just cut them and go off grid, they need everybodies money to pay for maintaining the grid. and political ads. I would dearly love to cut them off, I have an entire system ready to go but I still would pay $~20 month. Those people are not getting wholesale prices either, that got jacked up too, the utility is making money both ways.

Okie wrote:

mham001 wrote:

The embattled utility, which has been struggling to right itself since causing a fatal explosion in San Bruno in 2010, now is deemed to bear a measure of responsibility for blazes in Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, Humboldt, Butte and Lake counties because its equipment and facilities were involved in 12 of the fires, according to the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire. wildfireshttps://www.mercurynews.com/20 ... wildfires/

My question would be with all the claimed 100,000's of solar panel generators selling their excess energy to PG&E why they are not held in Vicarious Liability. How the heck are they dodging their liability here and shifting it to PG&E?

Confiscating hundreds of thousands of homes and personal property of the electrical generators should be first on the list since they want to be electrical wholesalers.

Okie

So you are suggesting that anyone who sells energy to PGE should be held liable as well? That is a lot of power companies across the west.

And I guess that would mean that all suppliers that sell to any entity should be liable for that entities liability?
That doesn't make sense.

Tugg

mham001 wrote:

I have an entire system ready to go but I still would pay $~20 month.

Wait.... you are saying that you have a system that can fully supply your power needs, 100%, all the time? Enough generating capacity and storage capacity to no longer need any outside connection?

Now there are a lot of people that live off the grid and pay nothing to the major power companies. But the friends I have doing that must bring in propane in addition to having to be a bit careful with electric when they are home. The batteries are limited and if solar doesn't keep up for the day then they are down and having to divert power (when it comes back sufficiently) to charging them back up. Most of the time it is bright enough out that things are stable, but they still are judicious with power use if batteries are being used or charged.

And they don't pay anything to the power company.

But if you want line connected to you hose you have to expect to pay something.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

So you are suggesting that anyone who sells energy to PGE should be held liable as well?

Err no, the question was:

Okie wrote:

How the heck are they dodging their liability here and shifting it to PG&E?

What language is involved to remove the electrical generators from vicarious liability.

Okie

Okie wrote:

Tugger wrote:

So you are suggesting that anyone who sells energy to PGE should be held liable as well?

Err no, the question was:

Okie wrote:

How the heck are they dodging their liability here and shifting it to PG&E?

What language is involved to remove the electrical generators from vicarious liability.

Okie

Oh, OK.
Well its because the fires weren't the fault of the generators. It was a fault in transmission. Lines or electrical transmission equipment came into contact with a ground somewhere which caused sparks which ignited the fire. The generator may have to pay PGE something for upkeep of the system but they aren't themselves responsible for said upkeep.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

mham001 wrote:

see for yourself... https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml

And people should understand that the "Master Meter" column does not apply for rates that individual home owners pay.

https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/y ... lords.page

Ahh! Found i! This link should be much better for showing PGE residential rate: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/ ... DS_E-1.pdf

Tugg

Ok so they DO break down the rates between electricity and transmission/distribution/fees.

In this state we can choose who we buy electricity from, we just can't choose the company that does the transmission and distribution. I don't know if California works the same.

We also don't have super dry brush to set on fire so I'm sure that saves on transmission costs, considering that a transmission line down just takes out a lot of people's electricity and takes a while to be fixed, rather than starting fires scorching vast expanses of land.