This is likely going to increase electric costs to customers. When companies are ordered by courts to pay gigantic amounts of money for things that are mostly part of routine risks, they have to take those expenses and risks into account in their business model and charge higher prices to compensate. I think part of this involves an impulse by those on the Left to want to make big companies with lots of money pay, but maybe these people are too stupid to be able to think about who it is who ultimately will end up paying for that. This is one part of the reason electric prices are much higher in Left-leaning progressive states than in more conservative states. Court decisions and local societal feelings about how things should work end up having a big effect on the economy. This does not seem like an entirely obvious court decision, and just demonstrates that in some types of cases the courts just kind of "make up the law" as they go along. (It's not like any situation very similar to this was anticipated in law) A court in Oregon is ordering an electric utility company to pay $73 million, and this could likely increase to several billion dollars, blaming the company for a fire that spread out of control in September 2020. There were very strong winds. The governor's chief of staff and several fire officials warned the company about the danger that the winds could knock over power lines which could lead to a fire danger, with the dry conditions and winds that could quickly spread fire, suggesting that the company shut off the power. A company official decided not to shut off the power, since it would have involved cutting off power to 600,000 customers. There does not exist proof that the electric power lines are what started the fire, but many suspect that was a likely cause. There were multiple points where fires started. Wildfires do naturally occur in the area. (The fire started over the Labor Day weekend, so there were many people out recreating in the area) Several of the property owners who lost their homes sued PacifiCorp, blaming the company for the fire, and accusing them of negligence for failing to shut off power in response to the danger the company was warned about. The next question that can be asked is should the company be held responsible for this? Wildfires are natural to that area. If the fire wasn't started by one thing, it would eventually be caused by something else. The longer the area goes without fire, the more dry brush will build up and the worse and more out of control a wildfire will be when it eventually happens. If a fire starts during a time of strong winds, that can make the fire more difficult to manage, and overwhelm the available resources available to keep the fire away from residential areas. Homeowners know those areas are naturally prone to fire, but still live in wood houses that could burn down. In my opinion, even if the company did start the fire, it is questionable whether they should be held entirely responsible for the effects of that wildfire. So that is one issue. Another question that can be asked is was it even a practical decision to decide to shut off the power? They could have shut off the power for several days, but then afterwards would have needed to send workers out to inspect the entire length of the power lines to make sure none had fallen over, before turning back on the power again. People's food inside their refrigerators would spoil and go bad. The electric company in that area probably would have had to reimburse all their customers for that cost. Electric cars, which Oregon wants to force everyone to buy by 2035, would not be able to get charged and would be stuck. This could perhaps even result in people getting trapped and dying if a fire did eventually break out. Are we being unreasonable if we expect the electric company to know what would happen? To know exactly what the level of risk was and how devastating the fire would be. Some of this to me just feels like normal risk. The company did not really go out of its way too much to do anything that was unusual or caused much greater risk than normal, and the people who suffered already had risk regardless of anything the company did, or even if electric power services were not provided. One could perhaps argue that the company should be partially punished for this, but it seems illogical to hold them 100% responsible for the damages. That is just emotion and stupidity. Making things even more unreasonable, it seems to be common thought among people that companies should have to pay lots of extra money, not for damages actually caused, but to try to "punish" the companies to incentivize them to avoid doing it again. That is what the court is doing in this situation. That type of notion is contentious in the first place, but is especially so in this situation, since one official who worked for the company made the decision, and it did not seem like an entirely unreasonable decision at the time. This is NOT actually logical, it is NOT fair. Human stupidity, emotion, and bias appears to be involved here. Many people in society (especially in certain areas) seem to want push all the responsibility onto a large organization, and make that organization pay for things. It's part of a mentality wanting wealth redistribution. It just demonstrates that juries of random people are too stupid to be able to make good and proper decisions in some kinds of cases. There has been no official cause determined for the Labor Day fires, which killed nine people, burned more than 1,875 square miles (4,856 square kilometers) in Oregon, and destroyed upward of 5,000 homes and structures. The blazes together were one of the worst natural disasters in Oregon history. Lawyers for the plaintiffs called the decision historic and said it "paves the way for potentially billions of dollars in further damages for the class members." PacifiCorp said it would appeal. The jury also applied its liability finding to a larger class including the owners of nearly 2,500 properties damaged in the fires, which could push the price tag for damages well into the billions of dollars. Those damages will be determined later. PacifiCorp could be on the hook for billions after jury verdict in devastating Oregon wildfires, KIRO 7 News, Andrew Selsky, Gene Johnson, June 12, 2023 A jury in Oregon says the electric utility PacifiCorp must pay punitive damages for causing devastating wildfires in 2020 -- on top of an earlier verdict already expected to amount to billions of dollars. The decision Wednesday came two days after the jurors found PacifiCorp liable for the fires and said it must pay for damage to property as well as emotional distress. The jury on Monday awarded $73 million to 17 homeowners named as plaintiffs in the case, with damages for a broader class involving the owners of nearly 2,500 other properties to be determined later. Doug Dixon, an attorney for the power company, said the utility could face bankruptcy if punitive damages exceed its net worth of $10.7 billion. Oregon jury: PacifiCorp must pay punitive damages for fires, plus award that could reach billions, Associated Press, Claire Rush, Gene Johnson, June 14, 2023
Let's suppose this decision does get upheld and the corporation is ordered to pay billions of dollars, then the corporation either goes bankrupt or becomes a shell of its former self with half its assets stripped away. What corporation would want to set up business in Oregon, after that? Knowing there's a risk everything could be taken away from them over some future incident that's hard to foresee. It's going to start forcing corporations in these crazy progressive states to buy insurance for liability, and those insurance prices are going to end up very high in these states where the outrageous lawsuits are normal. I really believe this is part of the reason that costs of living are higher in these states. And any corporations that have the choice will choose not to operate in these states and decide to set up in a different state. Although of course that's not the case for an electric utility provider. I have to wonder how bad things have to get until it becomes so bad that no private company is willing to provide electric utility services. I suspect the people in these states would love to socialize the electric power business and take it out of private company hands.
I don't know about this case but usually utilities only face damages due to failure to follow regulations. Such height requirement for the power lines, proper support and disconnect requirements for special circumstances, or not maintain the safety devices in the expected time frame. If all regulations were followed, it should be on the state and regulatory commission to update regulations to ensure this doesn't happen. Failure to do so is the fault of the government not the business. Utilities can get in trouble for cutting power/gas as much as not cutting power/gas depending on the situation. Keep in mind, cutting power can disrupt emergency services, hospitals, or during deep cold weather cause death. It is the regulatory agencies obligation to determine what is the most important, what risk is greater and in what situations or customers impacted and have it written so that utilities can follow that standard. Utilities can only be at fault for failing to follow that standard in a reasonable and timely manner.
The progressive crowd seems to disagree. Anything to take money from big rich corporations and make them pay! This jury and court seems to disagree with you. Though it still remains to be seen whether the ruling will get overturned on appeal.
The funny thing about lawsuits is the company could get sued if they did choose to cut off the power, and they can be sued if they did not cut off the power. Either way, they could be blamed and held "responsible".
PG&E's plan to bury power lines and prevent wildfires faces opposition because of high rates Pacific Gas & Electric -- one of the nation's largest utilities whose equipment has sparked some of California's deadliest wildfires -- wants to bury power lines in some of its most at-risk areas to prevent destructive blazes like the 2018 Paradise fire (in California) that killed 85 people. But state regulators are balking at the utility's plan because it would take too long and cost $5.9 billion. The company's customers -- who already have some of the highest rates in the country -- would have to pay for it. Regulators want PG&E to put a protective cover over many of its overhead power lines instead of burying them. The cover approach is cheaper, but riskier. PG&E says burying a power line reduces the chance it will start a wildfire by 99% because it can't be blown down by wind storms. The protective cover, which would better insulate the power line should it fall to the ground, would reduce that chance by 62%. PG&E, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019 after it faced more than $30 billion in damages for wildfires started by its equipment, is trying to convince regulators that its burying plan is better. The company filed its plan with state regulators last year. PG&E's plan to bury power lines and prevent wildfires faces opposition because of high rates, Adam Beam, Associated Press, October 16, 2023
