I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless you count "power lines active during dry conditions" which is unavoidable, the only meaningful failure here is repeated lack of maintenance. The design was fine, and it was installed fine; it lasted a hundred years! Lack of maintenance will kill anything eventually, all by itself.
> the only meaningful failure here is repeated lack of maintenance
The proximate cause of the fire was a broken hook.
The other failures were:
* Hook was not maintained
* Tower was not adequately inspected
* Record keeping was insufficient to recognise the need for maintenance
* Power lines were built in hard-to-maintain, fire-prone places
* Nobody within PG&E sounding the alarm about this the hook problem specifically, or the lack of maintenance more broadly (or not sounding it loud enough)
* Lack of controlled burns (or equivalent forestry management) that would have reduced the spread of fire
* Homes built in fire-prone areas
* Low population density, with higher per-capita costs of infrastructure maintenance
* Dry conditions, due to climate change, due to energy policy(?)
* PG&E's bizarre blend of the worst parts of public and private business, and their perpetual bankrupt-but-still-operating status.
* Lack of political leadership able/willing to come up with and enact a master plan to stop wildfires
10 is "bad management"? Sure, that's a root cause, though a massively vague one.
11 is not PG&E
So yes if you're concerned about external problems then there are things you can mention. I'd never argue that housing location and fire management and climate aren't factors! But in a discussion of what PG&E did wrong it's basically all maintenance.
> But in a discussion of what PG&E did wrong it's basically all maintenance.
What I mean is: the first poster in this thread mentioned a broken hook causing $16 billion in damage, but the difference between a broken hook causing $1 million in damage and a broken hook causing $16 billion in damage was largely out of PG&E's hands.
> 10 is "bad management"? Sure, that's a root cause, though a massively vague one.
To be more specific: PG&E is a 'private company' but it has no competitors, regulations set the prices it can charge, regulations set the shareholder returns, regulations stop them refusing customers, regulations dictate what they can build and where, and regulations allow them to keep bouncing in and out of bankruptcy with minimal consequences.
If a company's already bankrupt and has been for decades, any new CEO is going to insist on a bankruptcy-proof pay package. And what's the difference between liabilities of a million dollars and a trillion dollars when the electricity's going to keep flowing, the prices are going to stay the same, and the CEO's going to take home the same pay?
> What I mean is: the first poster in this thread mentioned a broken hook causing $16 billion in damage, but the difference between a broken hook causing $1 million in damage and a broken hook causing $16 billion in damage was largely out of PG&E's hands.
That's true but they knew that and it was their responsibility and it was easy to prevent if they hadn't failed at maintenance in ten different ways.
The power line failure just lit the fuse of the existing powder keg. Had the power line not failed, an equivalent fire could have eventually come from a cigarette butt of a hiker, lightning bolt, etc. The PG&E maintenance/record keeping fails are egregious, but the article also mentions climate change and forest management as things we need to address as well; it's not enough to eliminate one ignition source - we need to also prevent the powder keg from forming (or at least getting so big).
There are always other causes and improvements. From how the maintenance is performed and verified, to how the system works and is designed, to the process and culture of the organization.
It's impossible to design a system that won't need maintenance. There is nothing wrong with designing something that needs some parts replaced every 50 years, and that's the only design factor that was involved.
There were multiple failures on PG&E's part, to an extent, but they were all under the maintenance umbrella. Performing maintenance. Verifying maintenance. The culture around maintenance.
