Walter Ballin’s “con” argument to the PG&E’s plan to shut down power periodically is compelling. I believe PG&E did the math and figured that their losses, should another fire occur, would be far higher than the claims from individuals for their resulting damages. That calculation cannot be acceptable.
PG&E’s advice to the people who need power for medical equipment is to make a plan. Based on what assumptions? What resources are available? Are there private power generators willing to share power and space? Are there locations where immobile patients can be referred? How far away should the patient have to assume for a relocation? The basis of any plan is to take advantage of alternatives. These alternatives are unknown — making individual planning next to impossible.
There are things PG&E can do immediately. Staff up, locate and repair equipment in the high risk areas. Now. Install generators in centralized locations so medical needs for temporary power can be addressed. Suspend the required return to investors for a period of time so that net revenue is spent only on the public safety issues that PG&E created. That should be done through the bankruptcy court so long as the state Assembly agrees to remove regulatory barriers for a year or two.
I recognize there is no one really good solution. None of the above approaches will solve all the problems. But a little more concrete action from the best informed source is not just a good plan, it is a necessity in an emergency.
— Alicia Anderson, Chico
