Have a friend who works in the regulatory commission up here and he think the opposite. Apparently it’s a long discussion but the industry likes the stance PC&E took. They get sued when they were found not negligent (though the reason the fire started) because no one will let them clear the dead brush (or live brush). And they basically will raise the rates of the people to pay the money they now owe, so they’re moving money from one pocket to the other. And when wind picked up they threw up the middle finger at being blamed, and started to shut shit down to avoid more blame.

All I know is I didn’t get in at the bottom like I wanted, but my bank account has enjoyed their stock rebound.

Was recently working with a company building out a wireless network. All of the towers on PG&E land and using PG&E power were put on an indefinite hold by PG&E. Paperwork basically had to start over. I left about a month ago so not sure if that was ever resolved, but this company was pre-revenue and was having large amounts of Blackrock funding held up because we couldn't complete those sites.

Can you clarify because that doesn't make sense to me. A large number of towers are at or beyond their lifespans and need replacing. I cede the lack of brush clearing is a significant factor for the fires and the root for the breadth of them. However the deferred capital and maintenance coupled with rolling blackouts is ridiculous to me. (Their BK play is astute but doesn't solve the underlying issue)

I’ll ask him to clarify because I have no idea. But I bought in on his advice and apparently others agree that it isn’t going anywhere. Idk

Sort answer: can't go and fix issues that they have because CA mandates/regulates that they dump so much into green energy and all of that, that they don't have the revenue that the can direct to replacing some of these issues. And to replace a lot of these towers the cost is basically double because CA with all the other BS they add on to go and do the fixes. A lot of towers at these outrageous costs have been worked on, but they can't afford to replace all of them because of the added on fees.

The view from up here from the RCA: PC&E isn't going anywhere. The State can't afford to take them over. Yup, they're going to take their beating in the press, and from the Government, but it's just grandstanding. They'll be back. Buy the stock, and just don't look at it for 3 months and enjoy your gains.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

I heard an interesting conspiracy theory.

The rolling blackouts aren't from winds and fire threat, but from an over-reliance on wind and other green energy. High winds shut down a lot of turbines, and there just wasn't enough generating capacity.

I have no clue what their grid is set up with, but I do know that if wind speeds are too great they do have breaks on the turbines, or just shut them down. I can’t imagine their grid mandates wind energy if at peak draw (they should be able to cover with generators) but it is California...so you could be correct. If they don’t have the back up generators to support it, then this theory doesn’t sound that far fetched. Though I’m still thinking it was an “f you” to everyone blaming them (and seeing them).

I suspect that is a load of crap. According to this article only 7.2% of California electricity is generated by wind. When you consider the moderate temperatures for the shutdown periods compared to peak summer demand I can't see how that conspiracy has any truth to it. i.e. I'd bet that demand during the wind event is more than 7.2% less than peak summer demand so shutting the wind power down wouldn't cause the blackouts.

Also note that nearly all of the people with solar are putting power into the grid so I can't see how solar could be an issue here.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

if you're talking about PG&E, it exists in the same state as SoCal Edison, and that utility doesn't have similar trouble. they have an easement to my property, they come in and clear brush, they replace poles, they just replaced a bunch of poles in the area, i got a few of them (i use them for terracing).

republicans love to rail on california, because it's a highly desirable place, it's a success story, and republicans don't control it. but most of the harsh that's written about california is not based in fact. yes, calif mandates a change to green energy. SoCal Edison is not thrilled by that, but it'll somehow make do with its $50 billion in assets. utilities like to pay dividends, because it's the only value add for shareholders. in PG&E's case, better to replace its infrastructure now and forego the dividends for awhile.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I find this... interesting... as well.

This is where people get confused. There is a very significant difference between nameplate capacity and energy generated (nameplate capacity multiplied by capacity factor). Depending on where wind power is sited, capacity factor ranges from ~10-30%. If we go with the median (20% capacity factor) that means the nameplate capacity is 5x which means that the nameplate wind capacity would be ~35% of California's entire electrical generating capacity (assuming the rest had a 100% capacity factor which it does not). The point of all of this is that in a high-wind environment they very well might have engaged the brakes on the turbines which would effectively take an average of ~7% of the grid offline and if that capacity were taken offline at the wrong time (e.g maintenance outages elsewhere) and the wrong place (where the production is relative to distribution) I could very well see it causing brownouts/blackouts especially considering that they've recently shuttered some older nat gas turbines that would normally have served as peakers/backup.

Eyeroll. Is this like everyone being "confused" because there are different types of crude oil? Thank goodness that you're here to bloviate to solve everyone's "confusion" over power issues.

Do you have something constructive to add or do you respond to my comments strictly to express your animosity toward me?

https://www.eia.gov/...p?id=G#gen_nameplate
https://www.eia.gov/...id=Capacity%20factor
https://www.eia.gov/...ex.php?id=Generation
https://www.eia.gov/...?id=Net%20generation

It would appear that capacity at 6000 megawatts is about 52000 GWH. So 14000GWH generated, or about 25% run time at full load capacity.

On a side note there appears to be more of that or about 9% total of imported wind power.

On a side note did you know that it would take 6000 kevin’s at FTP to generate the same as one wind turbine?

For easy math I pegged your FTP at 333watts.

Maurice