I have every sympathy for the folks who lost homes here in California last year; it could easily have been my house. But what a lot of discussions miss regarding SCE's role in the Altadena fire is that SCE is a public utility, and California's Public Utilities Commission has not been allowing SCE (or other utilities, like PG&E) to charge rates that would allow them to do the required maintenance to prevent fires. In another case, some years ago, I understand that a fire in Northern California started next to a PG&E substation; the brush had not been trimmed, so I'm told, because environmental regulation didn't allow it.
From where I sit, this is not simply a "power company bad" situation; the state has played a significant role.
mistrial9•1h ago
I have two hundred pages of details that do not conform to this line of thinking
kg•1h ago
Doesn't California already have some of the highest electricity costs in the country? Is there really not enough money coming in for SCE, PG&E etc to do necessary maintenance? That's shocking.
EDIT: Looking further, PG&E's net profit every year for the past few years seems to have been extremely large, so I don't know that I buy it...
peezd•1h ago
We have a similar situation here in Colorado, with our single provider continually raising rates (with one of the reasons being better mitigation; from what I can tell that means just running ads constantly talking about how great they are), while also saying they can't do mitigation other than just cutting the power off when it is windy.
Meanwhile they maintain margins that most any public company would be incredibly jealous about.
Sure it's not black and white but the positioning is tiresome.
gustavus•1h ago
I think in this case the OPs point is that even with the money the electric company can't do the necessary maintenance because it violates environmental laws about cutting down trees or disturbing the habitat of the Blue Titted Elbonian Mud Grouse.
Then you just can't. I'm sure the utility companies are heart broken they have to not spend on maintenance and can instead pocket the extra cash but it doesn't change the levithianian regulatory mess California has erected around doing anything in the name of protecting the environment, compromise and competing concern be darned.
mistrial9•10m ago
> can't do the necessary maintenance because it violates environmental laws about cutting down trees
In California, Pacific Gas and Electric is documented to make a business choice of relying on contractors to do the vast majority of tree removal and trimming after a certain change in the executive leadership. Subsequently, extensive documentation shows a chain of pressure to cut costs on tree trimming and extract better terms from the sub-contractors using harsh negotiation and policy.
Later, after catastrophic wildfires time and again in the last ten years, an avalanche of low-paid, low-skill tree cutting has occurred. In many cases the zeal to cut old trees seems to have some extra energy, between the abused sub-contractors, harsh labor oversight, insulated management and back-room executive management meetings.
The framing that it is environmental protections that are the impediment to power line maintenance is as worn thin as a floor carpet at a twenty dollar motel near Sacramento IMHO
hightrix•1h ago
> California's Public Utilities Commission has not been allowing SCE (or other utilities, like PG&E) to charge rates that would allow them to do the required maintenance to prevent fires.
Source requested.
SCE made billions in profit last year. If they cannot upkeep their infrastructure while making large profits, they should be regulated to spend more profits on infrastructure or they should be nationalized and controled entirely by the state.
SCE does not get to have both large profits and say they are not allowed to charge enough.
California pays ridiculous rates as it is, sometimes over 40 cents per kwh.
everybodyknows•25m ago
The theoretical owners of those profits now see the market's valuation of that privilege fallen by 24% today. Evidently big news is out.
Have you a source for "billions in profit" as opposed to "billions in revenue"? If so, I'd be interested to see it, especially relative to SCE's current maintenance budget. I don't object to being proven wrong.
My main point, though, is that the regulatory environment here in California has evolved without due regard for the law of unintended consequences.
Can we stop just automatically assuming that the poor, beleaguered companies would definitely be acting in the public's interest all on their own if only it weren't for the big bad regulators? It really seems like, in 2026, there should be ample evidence to the contrary by now.
hedora•36m ago
Any news on what happened to the statewide “bury high risk lines” project? I get the impression it was very expensive, since PG&E was touting it, but the last time I heard (a year or so in), they had not yet buried 10 miles of line, statewide. This was a few years ago.
For reference, we have buried about 1000ft of line on our property (pg&e actively prevented us from burying an additional 200ft of their line that runs through trees and has been taken out by limbs since then).
So, we’re over 1% the statewide first year burying project. (Our lines do not count towards their total).
ahazred8ta•18m ago
> they should be regulated to spend more profits on infrastructure
That is exactly what people have been lobbying the regulators for, but the regulators keep saying no.
wduquette•1h ago
From where I sit, this is not simply a "power company bad" situation; the state has played a significant role.
mistrial9•1h ago
kg•1h ago
EDIT: Looking further, PG&E's net profit every year for the past few years seems to have been extremely large, so I don't know that I buy it...
peezd•1h ago
Meanwhile they maintain margins that most any public company would be incredibly jealous about.
Sure it's not black and white but the positioning is tiresome.
gustavus•1h ago
Then you just can't. I'm sure the utility companies are heart broken they have to not spend on maintenance and can instead pocket the extra cash but it doesn't change the levithianian regulatory mess California has erected around doing anything in the name of protecting the environment, compromise and competing concern be darned.
mistrial9•10m ago
In California, Pacific Gas and Electric is documented to make a business choice of relying on contractors to do the vast majority of tree removal and trimming after a certain change in the executive leadership. Subsequently, extensive documentation shows a chain of pressure to cut costs on tree trimming and extract better terms from the sub-contractors using harsh negotiation and policy.
Later, after catastrophic wildfires time and again in the last ten years, an avalanche of low-paid, low-skill tree cutting has occurred. In many cases the zeal to cut old trees seems to have some extra energy, between the abused sub-contractors, harsh labor oversight, insulated management and back-room executive management meetings.
The framing that it is environmental protections that are the impediment to power line maintenance is as worn thin as a floor carpet at a twenty dollar motel near Sacramento IMHO
hightrix•1h ago
Source requested.
SCE made billions in profit last year. If they cannot upkeep their infrastructure while making large profits, they should be regulated to spend more profits on infrastructure or they should be nationalized and controled entirely by the state.
SCE does not get to have both large profits and say they are not allowed to charge enough.
California pays ridiculous rates as it is, sometimes over 40 cents per kwh.
everybodyknows•25m ago
https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/EIX?qsearchterm=
wduquette•22m ago
My main point, though, is that the regulatory environment here in California has evolved without due regard for the law of unintended consequences.
hightrix•2m ago
thaumaturgy•58m ago
After choosing profits over maintenance, California utility giant forces blackouts on customers: https://www.salon.com/2019/10/09/after-choosing-profits-over...
PG&E Spent Billions on Lobbyists and PR Instead of Upgrades: https://theintercept.com/2019/10/11/pge-power-shutdown-calif...
John Oliver on utilities, including PG&E: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YRSqaPtMg
Can we stop just automatically assuming that the poor, beleaguered companies would definitely be acting in the public's interest all on their own if only it weren't for the big bad regulators? It really seems like, in 2026, there should be ample evidence to the contrary by now.
hedora•36m ago
For reference, we have buried about 1000ft of line on our property (pg&e actively prevented us from burying an additional 200ft of their line that runs through trees and has been taken out by limbs since then).
So, we’re over 1% the statewide first year burying project. (Our lines do not count towards their total).