SDG&E planning to cut power during high fire danger

I just received a packet from San Diego Gas and Electric stating that they are going ahead with their plan to cut off people's power during high fire danger starting this September. Since I live where both the Witch and Cedar fires started, I'll probably be one of the first in my county to lose power during high fire danger. An hour or two blackout can be fun, and a good chance to use my flashlights. However, the paperwork said these blackouts will last 12 to 72 hours. That's long enough for food to spoil, a fire to destroy my home without warning, or for me to roast on a hot day without air conditioning. Since analog signals stopped, I can't use a battery powered T.V. to get up to date information. 72 hours with the town's waterpumps shut off would compound the problem with fires as Ramona is the staging area for all of San Diego's fire resources. It's hard for firefighters to put out fires without water. Our area is also under a legislated drought. To protect the Delta Smelt fish, the vast majority of our water supply was cut off from the Sacramento River. To add to these problems, our state has had budget cuts that I'm sure have affected emergency services (firefighter, police, and medical professionals). Our state is also releasing criminals early because they can't afford to jail them. Is it just me, or are these the makings of a major catastrophe in the near future? Seems like there are a lot of potential disasters in the future. Imagine another huge firestorm in southern California that doesn't have enough people working to put it out and with little water to put it out. The early released criminals would be tempted to steal from or hurt innocent people since the police would be understaffed and distracted by the fire. Few people would be informed by T.V. of how close the fires are because there is no more analog signal. The remainder of southern California's fresh water supply could be used up fighting the fire leaving millions without water. Does anyone else sense trouble coming on the horizon?

Dang, that's a pretty F'ed up plan.

And here I was thinking how screwed up my own state is only to find one which is worse. I think the problem you describe is twofold. On the one hand, yes, it's stupid policy to cut off power for the reasons you mentioned. On the other hand, the state never should have allowed development in regions subject to high-fire danger (or major landslides, flooding, avalanches, storm surges, etc.). It's now costing an enormous amount of resources to protect these areas. IMHO, they should be desettled by attrition (as each family moves out the property is returned to a natural state and the family is compensated for whatever their property was worth).

I don't know, I live in Chula Vista, and that seems like a lot of disasters to worry about. On a daily basis, people here are dying from heart attacks, cancer, car accidents and other accidents. A few are murdered. Even in the worst fires in city history, we only lost a few dozen people--most too stubborn to evacuate or illegal aliens in the hillsides crossing the border.

During the Witch Creek fire, I listened to AM radio in my car while watching the flames from East H street.

Power--you should generally be prepared to be self sustaining for 72 hours. You could get a generator. I don't see critical infrastructure being blacked out, just homes or non-critical business. SDG&E may back down if they take too much negative publicity.

Water--always been a problem, but a long term one. Most of it is used for non drinking, so that's the first thing that's going to get cut. Residential tap water is probably last.

Budget cuts, criminals--Depends on how the cuts are implemented. Budget money goes to two huge things: state employee salaries and benefits, and entitlement programs for poor and unemployed people. Some is spent on infrastructure like buildings, roads and cars, etc. But pay/benefits is the biggest expense, by far. The governor is zeroing in on state employee pay/benefits because small percentage cuts=massive dollar savings. Also, the poor, unemployed and elderly are going to lose some handouts, programs, and benefits. State college students will pay more tuition.

Letting out prisoners is political anthrax. Even liberals aren't likely to push that too hard. Our state spends $43,000 per prisoner per year. Other states spend about $18,000. Mostly due to enormous salaries and benefits to guards. That is one way to save money, though I support guards getting a healthy salary for the crappy job they endure.

Police officers are typically the second to last people to get laid off. Last are the politicians and their staff.

That is a really bad idea, all it takes is one house fire from a candle to start a wildfire if the fire danger is that bad. I think if they look at it that way they would back down.

I'm sure SDG&E has taken steps to ensure critical power resources will be available for fire fighting under the conditions you mention. No State utility makes these decisions unilaterally. The CPUC and other regulatory agencies would have to approve such a plan. In addition, SDG&E and well as SCE & PG&E work in close coordination with fire departments to ensure public safety is a priority.

That being said, San Diego County has definitely suffered some horrible fires recently and SDG&E certainly needs to clarify your concerns. I would contact them for further information on the details of this plan.

It is not too big of a surprise. SD Power's lines are almost certainly the cause of many of those fires in the first place. We have the same thing happen up North with PGE lines starting fires.

I think it is pretty clear why people want power lines buried, not just for EMF and aesthetics, but also the very real fire danger.

I know that it is unpopular to say something positive about prison early releases, but keep in mind that most of the sentences are harsher than in other states, at least in part because the prison guard union is so effective at lobbying for tough sentences. It actually is quite morbid if you think about it - the Prison Guard Union literally tries to make sentences longer so they can have more power and more worker hours. In case someone feels sorry for them, they are the strongest union by far in CA, and the best paid state workers IIRC.

HarryN said:

I think it is pretty clear why people want power lines buried, not just for EMF and aesthetics, but also the very real fire danger.

Click to expand...

I'm 100% with you on this. Earlier this year ConEd starting digging trenches in the street and laying cables in preparation for taking down the unsightly, antiquated open air power lines. In our case I suspect the reason is pure economics. A lot of utility poles here are upwards of 75 years old. They are probably well past the point of needing to be replaced. And the trees have grown quite a bit, to the point they need regular pruning to keep from fouling the power lines. It will likely cost as much to replace them while keeping the power flowing as it will to simply bury the line. And even if it costs a little less, you'll spend all this money to end up with the same antiquated, high maintenance system. In the long run burying the lines makes sense on so many levels. I look forward to the aerial clutter disappearing in the next few years. Dramatic difference in the blocks which were already done.

Lightraven said:

Power--you should generally be prepared to be self sustaining for 72 hours. You could get a generator. I don't see critical infrastructure being blacked out, just homes or non-critical business. SDG&E may back down if they take too much negative publicity.

Water--always been a problem, but a long term one. Most of it is used for non drinking, so that's the first thing that's going to get cut. Residential tap water is probably last.

Click to expand...

Using a generator isn't that easy. I live upstairs in an apartment complex. Even if I plugged in an extension cord into my refrigerator from a generator downstairs, my neighbors would probably try plugging their stuff in and overloading it. There is also the potential of the generator getting stolen as I live in a bad neighborhood. During the Witch fire, we were forced to evacuate and weren't allowed back for 5 days. When we got home, the water for the whole town was shut off. The water pump system needed to be repaired and the backup system didn't work and should have be fixed long before the fires started. It was later that we found out that the water district was offered money by the federal government to replace the system (it was over 50 years old), but they turned down the money. Once the water was pumping again, we were ordered to leave the water shut off so we didn't overburden the system. They needed time to get enough water pressure for fire hoses to work. We weren't allowed to turn on or use the water for at least a week after we were allowed home. Residential tap water was the last thing we got back while non-drinking (firefighting) water was the first priority.

Define non-critical business. Is a gas station a non-critical business? Without power to one, firetrucks can't gas up, people can't gas up their cars to evacuate, and nobody can gas up a generator to run a refrigerator. How about a restaurant? Without power to cook at home, people tend to eat out, but without power to local restaurants, they have to travel farther to eat, which is hard to do without gas. How about a grocery store or convenient store? People will need to buy dust masks, eye goggles, batteries, flashlights, battery powered radios, as well as canned food.

During the Witch fire, the local political leaders decided not to let us back home until there was sufficient infrastructure to support the town's needs. However, our town had evacuated with our guns and people started breaking through the barracades to get home. We were allowed back only to avoid a riot. When you don't have power or water, someone may decide you have to leave your home even though your life isn't at risk. That's another concern with these potential blackouts. Leaders may decide that your presence at home taxes the infrastructure enough to warrant making you leave. It becomes harder to be self-sustaining for the long term when you're forced to live in your car.

real smart.
cut power during high fire danger and force folks to run generators,cook on grills,campstoves,OPEN FIRES,ect.
i doubt many of those common cheap chinese generators have proper spark arrestors on them.add the potential for accidents when refueling and its really a bad idea.

I would move rather than try to deal with the approved plan.

But I wouldn't live there to start with. Too many people in that state.

SDG&E thought of this plan after they were sued by fire victims for their power lines starting some of the fires. This is a case where the solution is worse than the problem. It's like trying to cure a headache by shooting yourself in the head with a gun.

During high fire danger, open flames aren't allowed here. That means that when your power gets shut off and you want to cook a meal, you'll get a ticket for trying. I've been camping during red flag warnings and the rangers wouldn't let me use most types of stoves, barbecue, build a fire, or even use a candle lantern in my tent. About the only options will be to eat food that doesn't need cooking or to go somewhere with power and eat out. So don't worry about fires being accidentally started by cooking. The people will simply starve instead.

This is what happens when a company providing a needed service gets sued. They more or less stop providing the service to avoid more lawsuits. All the blame did not belong to SDG&E for starting the fires. It often took 100 mph winds to knock down power lines or to knock trees down into them to start the fires. Structures in San Diego are only engineered to survive 70 or 80 mph winds. The last round of fires was like an act of God, and no company should have been held totally responsible for them. Our government has practiced fire suppresion since the early 1900s when the Cleaveland National Forest averaged 16 trees per acre. Now it has over 100 trees per acre. This makes it much easier for fires to spread. We were better off letting the fires burn in patches in the first place before the government "fixed" the problem by putting them out and letting the fuel for future fires continue to grow. Sometimes, doing nothing is the best thing to do. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

Hooked on Fenix said:

This is what happens when a company providing a needed service gets sued. They more or less stop providing the service to avoid more lawsuits.

Click to expand...

No kidding. Just this winter some dumb crok and his wife wandered into wilderness while skiing and got lost. His wife died before he was rescued. He's now suing the volunteer S&R teams for not finding them in time. Some of the S&R teams has already quit for fear of liability and lawsuit.

jzmtl said:

No kidding. Just this winter some dumb crok and his wife wandered into wilderness while skiing and got lost. His wife died before he was rescued. He's now suing the volunteer S&R teams for not finding them in time. Some of the S&R teams has already quit for fear of liability and lawsuit.

Click to expand...

The volunteer teams should be protected under Good Samaritan laws. (I guess the key word is should).

Here's an idea... Every rescue team carries a waiver of liability with them. The next time they find a person in need of rescue, he has to sign the waiver before they lift a finger to help him. Otherwise, they leave him there to die.

Obviously I'm kidding. But I wouldn't be surprised if this idea gets taken seriously by a few attorneys out there.

Monocrom said:

The volunteer teams should be protected under Good Samaritan laws. (I guess the key word is should).

Here's an idea... Every rescue team carries a waiver of liability with them. The next time they find a person in need of rescue, he has to sign the waiver before they lift a finger to help him. Otherwise, they leave him there to die.

Obviously I'm kidding. But I wouldn't be surprised if this idea gets taken seriously by a few attorneys out there.

Click to expand...

They should, but I guess nobody was low enough to sue them so the law was not necessary, till now.

jzmtl said:

No kidding. Just this winter some dumb crok and his wife wandered into wilderness while skiing and got lost. His wife died before he was rescued. He's now suing the volunteer S&R teams for not finding them in time. Some of the S&R teams has already quit for fear of liability and lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Please tell me you're joking. I can't believe anyone would be that slimy. Let's see-he and his wife were in the woods. Their fault-nobody put them there. They wandered off and got lost. Again their fault. By luck he was rescued before he died but his wife wasn't so lucky. Instead of being thankful that the rescuers risked their necks to save his he's suing? The sad part is the usual jury of his peers (read idiots) will probably see his side of it, and he'll get a big award. And once that happens you'll see all the rescue units disappear for fear of liability. Just when you though you've seen it all.....

Anybody can "sue" anyone for any reason in the sense of filing a lawsuit in the records office. I'm sure people aren't subpoenaed unless the suit (tort) has merit and doesn't violate laws like Good Samaritan.

One anti tort law in California says you cannot sue someone who uses deadly force (i.e. shooting) to protect himself and accidentally shoots an innocent bystander, if the deadly force was justified.

Good Samartian laws in California were beefed up this year. Don't know about other states.

jtr1962 said:

Please tell me you're joking. I can't believe anyone would be that slimy. Let's see-he and his wife were in the woods. Their fault-nobody put them there. They wandered off and got lost. Again their fault. By luck he was rescued before he died but his wife wasn't so lucky. Instead of being thankful that the rescuers risked their necks to save his he's suing? The sad part is the usual jury of his peers (read idiots) will probably see his side of it, and he'll get a big award. And once that happens you'll see all the rescue units disappear for fear of liability. Just when you though you've seen it all.....

Click to expand...

Nope, no joke.

Sounds to me like Canada doesn't have Good Samaritan laws but really needs them.

Canadians were probably too polite to file a frivolous lawsuit like this until now.

California probably invented frivolous lawsuits and the Good Samaritan laws probably soon followed.