Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

As California tries to become a Third World nation, residents are taking measures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    Well....if you're going to build and populate an area prone to wildfires.....you cannot just 'deal with' wildfires at the original rate. You have to reduce wildfires proportionate with the expansion of populated areas. Which means more extensive firebreaks, and more stringent standards for stand-offs. I haven't seen where any of that was done or ordered by the permitting authorities. But then, I have a bit of experience with developments.....and they tend to put profits above all, so without someone making them do best practices, they simply won't.
    I agree that what you say is, indeed, a necessary part of the solution. Notice, however, that this is a call for tougher regulations. I also suspect that the immediate cost ( see taxes) discouraged the previous administrations from adopting real solutions. The previous decade was one where the state was having budget deficit concerns and the beginning of this decade started with a crisis that affected particularly CA's housing market and the economy (and budget). Tough to sell to the public the need to increase expenses to address wildfires. I am not saying that the decisions that were made were correct. I just describe how things were developed.
    Last edited by pamak; 25 Oct 19, 04:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Well....if you're going to build and populate an area prone to wildfires.....you cannot just 'deal with' wildfires at the original rate. You have to reduce wildfires proportionate with the expansion of populated areas. Which means more extensive firebreaks, and more stringent standards for stand-offs. I haven't seen where any of that was done or ordered by the permitting authorities. But then, I have a bit of experience with developments.....and they tend to put profits above all, so without someone making them do best practices, they simply won't.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    The problem is that people stupid enough to build in a floodplain or an area subject to wildfires in the past were eliminated from the gene pool. You can of course live happily in either environment if you are intelligent enough to plan for the inevitable. That may require considerable alterations to the "natural" environment but the Yin is chaos.
    I do not know to what extend wildfires in California were as much of a problem as they are now Higher population density increases the probability of fire damaging properties..

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    The problem is that people stupid enough to build in a floodplain or an area subject to wildfires in the past were eliminated from the gene pool. You can of course live happily in either environment if you are intelligent enough to plan for the inevitable. That may require considerable alterations to the "natural" environment but the Yin is chaos.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    PG&E filling for bankruptcy over loses related to previous fires is part of the insanity of extensive development in a semiarid environment prone to droughts, high winds, and brush fires. Driving a company into bankruptcy is not a solution to their inability to properly manage fire hazards when the real fault lies with local government issuing development permits without rigorous provisions for fire prevention. If you are going to live in this environment you may have to give up the pretties and environmental virtue signaling.
    So, are you saying that CA with its housing crisis problem should create even tougher restrictions in land development? I thought you were among those who criticize CA for its oppressive,socialist regulations.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    PG&E filling for bankruptcy over loses related to previous fires is part of the insanity of extensive development in a semiarid environment prone to droughts, high winds, and brush fires. Driving a company into bankruptcy is not a solution to their inability to properly manage fire hazards when the real fault lies with local government issuing development permits without rigorous provisions for fire prevention. If you are going to live in this environment you may have to give up the pretties and environmental virtue signaling.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    If one only wanted to bash CA, one might consider same to be the literal equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel with a 16in gun.

    For starters, a state that has allowed its cities to so overbuild beyond any possible 'capacity' that it has to pull water from multiple states away simply to avert a catastropic drought and make it a mere severe drought on such a regular basis that it can be called 'normal'.

    On the subject of the whole 'power' thing, one can logically come to the following conclusions, one or multiple of which must be true:

    1) Power Companies in California have so little oversight that they are allowed to violate all sorts of regulations and best practices to where a generally safe method of transmitting energy is unusually capable of sparking massive wildfires.

    2) Organizations or Bodies within CA take actions either in the courts, regulatory hearings, or other procedures that prevent Power Companies from correctly following all regulations and/or best practices for preventing their wires from sparking massive wildfires.

    3) CA as a state does such an incredibly **** poor and grossly negligent job of day to day forestry management and long-term forestry management that the state is regularly ablaze with uncontrolled wildfires.

    4) Developers or other actors within CA exacerbate the problem with wildfires by building neighborhoods and other structures within highly fire-prone areas. The act of doing so not only adds to possible ignition sources for wildfires, but also creates barriers against proper forestry management practices due to populations being placed in wildland forested areas.

    5) Due to some combination of factors, the Power Companies seem unable to, now that the problem has been well and truly identified, correct the problem without purposefully causing 'anti-fire blackouts'. One would think that the revenue lost from a single blackout would easily compensate for the purchase or hiring of equipment and personnel to perform mass bushhogging and tree-trimming along the power-line firebreaks.
    If one wants to bash CA for its socialist and green policies, he still needs to show that it is these policies which make CA's record worse than the record of other states and it is not a result of unrelated factors which put CA at a great disadvantage such as the combination of high population density (which affects the grid density), hot and dry climate and the presence of quite extensive green land and forests.

    For sure, it is obvious that the current tactics do not work and there must be some form of change. But a honest discussion for a meaningful change starts with having a discussion without setting from the start and WITHOUT EVIDENCE an agenda of attacking CA's "socialism" or environmentalism.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    If one only wanted to bash CA, one might consider same to be the literal equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel with a 16in gun.

    For starters, a state that has allowed its cities to so overbuild beyond any possible 'capacity' that it has to pull water from multiple states away simply to avert a catastropic drought and make it a mere severe drought on such a regular basis that it can be called 'normal'.

    On the subject of the whole 'power' thing, one can logically come to the following conclusions, one or multiple of which must be true:

    1) Power Companies in California have so little oversight that they are allowed to violate all sorts of regulations and best practices to where a generally safe method of transmitting energy is unusually capable of sparking massive wildfires.

    2) Organizations or Bodies within CA take actions either in the courts, regulatory hearings, or other procedures that prevent Power Companies from correctly following all regulations and/or best practices for preventing their wires from sparking massive wildfires.

    3) CA as a state does such an incredibly **** poor and grossly negligent job of day to day forestry management and long-term forestry management that the state is regularly ablaze with uncontrolled wildfires.

    4) Developers or other actors within CA exacerbate the problem with wildfires by building neighborhoods and other structures within highly fire-prone areas. The act of doing so not only adds to possible ignition sources for wildfires, but also creates barriers against proper forestry management practices due to populations being placed in wildland forested areas.

    5) Due to some combination of factors, the Power Companies seem unable to, now that the problem has been well and truly identified, correct the problem without purposefully causing 'anti-fire blackouts'. One would think that the revenue lost from a single blackout would easily compensate for the purchase or hiring of equipment and personnel to perform mass bushhogging and tree-trimming along the power-line firebreaks.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    And for those who are really serious in having a discussion about CA's regulations and the required clearance near power lines based on evidence

    https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/yar...gulations.page


    When performing our vegetation management duties as required by law, we do our best to preserve the trees on your property. In some cases, however, problem trees or improperly planted trees pose too high a risk to public safety and electric system reliability and must be removed. If we don't comply with regulations, we put the public at risk, increase the possibility of outages and face hefty fines.


    These are the regulations we follow:



    General Order 95, issued by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), requires a year-round clearance below power lines of a minimum 18 inches. New fire safety regulations require a minimum clearance of four feet year-round for high-voltage power lines in the CPUC-designated High Fire-Threat Districts.



    PRC 4292 is administered by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). It requires that PG&E maintain a firebreak of at least 10 feet in radius of a utility pole, with tree limbs within the 10-foot radius of the pole being removed up to 8 feet above ground. From 8 feet to conductor height requires removal of dead, diseased or dying limbs and foliage. This applies in the State Responsibility Area during designated fire season.


    PRC 4293, administered by CAL FIRE, requires a 4-foot minimum clearance be maintained for power lines between 2,400 and 72,000 volts, and a 10-foot clearance for conductors 115,000 volts and above. PRC 4293 also requires the removal of dead, diseased, defective and dying trees that could fall into the lines. This applies in the State Responsibility Area during designated fire season.


    Following the Governor's January 2014 Drought State of Emergency Proclamation, the CPUC issued Resolution ESRB-4. The resolution directs utilities to take practicable measures necessary to reduce the likelihood of fires. Those measures include increasing vegetation inspections; removing hazardous, dead and sick trees and other vegetation near electric power lines and poles; sharing resources with CAL FIRE to staff lookouts adjacent to the utilities' property; and clearing access roads under power lines for fire truck access.


    NERC FAC 003-4 is a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-approved standard implemented to eliminate transmission outages and resulting blackouts due to vegetation contact. The standard applies to all utilities across the United States and directs them to manage vegetation clearances between trees and power lines to ensure the reliable operation of the transmission system.


    The standard applies to transmission line voltages carrying 200,000 volts and higher and certain lower voltages transmission lines identified as critical by the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC).


    Those who just use the subject to engage in their favorite habit of bashing CA should not bother...

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post

    Oh, Good Lord. What happens when the clearing crew shows up with their equipment and find a home of some who knows what specie that was not there last year? The crew go back to headquarters and report the situation. Things come to abrupt halt until US Fish & Wildife, CA Fish & Game, and assorted specialists shows up AFTER more paperwork is filed.

    Power passing through private land is not unique, but not everywhere is blessed with California luscious flora growth and cursed with DROUGHT.
    The crew showing up to clear branches are not biologists and they will find no new species.. And even if somebody finds a new species there, you have not provided the code that prohibits the maintenance of lines in such areas. And even in such scenario, the crew can keep themselves busy by clearing other portions of the grid until the required paperwork for the specific area of concern is completed. Also, neither you nor the poster who initially made the claim provided evidence that the wildfires were a result of such scenario.

    Yes, climate is one of the main reasons for CA's wildfire problems. But this is not the main argument of the people in this thread who blame CA for the fires.
    Last edited by pamak; 24 Oct 19, 17:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Filing paperwork is not the same with the claim that they could not clear branches near power lines. Also, It is not unique to California to have lines traversing private lands.
    Oh, Good Lord. What happens when the clearing crew shows up with their equipment and find a home of some who knows what specie that was not there last year? The crew go back to headquarters and report the situation. Things come to abrupt halt until US Fish & Wildife, CA Fish & Game, and assorted specialists shows up AFTER more paperwork is filed.

    Power passing through private land is not unique, but not everywhere is blessed with California luscious flora growth and cursed with DROUGHT.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post

    Do you not understand nesting in trees and brushes, and the fact that there are both State and Federal regulations that create a paperwork and oversight nightmare? Power and gas lines also traverse through private lands where the Utilities also need to permission and coordination from the owners. Why did Governors Brown and Newsom (liberals) sign a bunch of new laws to expedite the Utilities' clearance work and allow them to pass on the costs to consumers, and to protect the Utilities?

    Not to mention the State's previous Green mandates that required increased investment in carbon investment which diverted money from maintenance - that is just one reason why PG&E can now pass on maintenance costs with the new laws.
    Filing paperwork is not the same with the claim that the power companies could not clear branches near power lines. Also, It is not unique to California to have lines traversing private lands. Which part of the old laws prohibited utility companies from clearing branches near power lines in certain areas because of environmental concerns?

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Such fights does not imply prohibition of clearing branches near power lines. The very fact of having the companies held accountable for the wildlife damages should be a clear indicator that the excuse of state regulations that supposedly prevented the companies from doing the right thing does not fly.
    Do you not understand nesting in trees and brushes, and the fact that there are both State and Federal regulations that create a paperwork and oversight nightmare? Power and gas lines also traverse through private lands where the Utilities also need to permission and coordination from the owners. Why did Governors Brown and Newsom (liberals) sign a bunch of new laws to expedite the Utilities' clearance work and allow them to pass on the costs to consumers, and to protect the Utilities?

    Not to mention the State's previous Green mandates that required increased investment in carbon investment which diverted money from maintenance - that is just one reason why PG&E can now pass on maintenance costs with the new laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
    One poster complained that the power companies were neglectant in clearing the brush and trees away from their power lines. He did not bother to check that in most cases, they were not allowed to do so because of some endangered species that might be living in the areas to be cleared. So, another round of blackouts are going to occur for the sake of preventing power line sparked fires.

    Oh, those generators had better meet the stringent state requirements on emissions or they will be banned from being used. IE, they cannot be purchased from out of the state.
    So, since you were the first to respond on this thread and since we are into the subject of using sources, where is YOUR source for your claim?
    Last edited by pamak; 24 Oct 19, 16:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Do not give me a lecture about fallacies that you do not understand.

    What I did was to attack tour sense of expertise when you make ridiculous statements WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO BACK THEM UP!

    It is not that you actually provided sources and I chose to attack your credibility instead of focusing on attacking your arguments based on the sources you brought.

    What I essentially say is that your history of commentary about even basic facts regarding CA shows that you cannot be trusted. Therefore any statement of yours that is not backed up by evidence should be taken with a huge grain of salt!
    Where was YOUR source when you claimed that utility companies can do any clearing they want without approval simply because lines were permitted?

    Stop the personal commentaries NOW.

    ACG Staff

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X