A familiar sound at our house recently has been the screech of electrical gadgets sending out one last desperate distress call, as they die from another Portland General Electric (PGE) power failure.
“How long will it last this time,” we wonder?
Calls to PGE are infuriating, because they rarely provide essential information as to what caused the latest outage and how long it will last. Then PGE suggests that customers go online to get more information, surely knowing that those without power likely also lack Internet service which runs off the same power.
What is causing this latest swarm of outages? PGE will point to the winter storms that we experienced over Christmas that brought the full gamut of winter precipitation, cold weather, and high winds. They were above average in magnitude, but nothing that we have not seen in previous winters. Yet outages that PGE would have repaired in a few hours now take five to fifteen hours. That turns an annoying outage into one requiring a backup generator to have lights, heat, and refrigeration. In other words, PGE customers need to go into a survival mode to minimize consequential damages.
The BIG Question is: Were these “Acts of God” or could PGE have done a much better job? PGE seems to be moving toward ever more and longer outages as an acceptable way of doing business.
That was obvious in early December before the swarm outages, when they sent four public relations specialists to address complaints from Corbett Fire District #14 over the “planned” outage on September 9, 2022. That outage ended up lasting 60 hours in the Corbett area, far beyond the actual wind event that provided an excuse for it.
The Corbett Fire District Board and Fire Chief wanted to know why PGE failed to coordinate with them. They were not happy that they had to provide emergency services to residents, as the long outage wore on, while at the same time staying ready to fight any fires immediately. It was a dangerous time to be distracted by a PGE experiment. Here is what their letter to PGE said:
“Despite Corbett Fire’s deep, relevant, and geographically specific knowledge of the fire risk, PGE declined to meaningfully consult with Corbett Fire prior to its decision to de-energize. The lack of consult produced a result that was dangerous and counterintuitive.”
“PGE assured Corbett Fire that such a [Temporary Community Resource] center would be based in the Corbett Grade School parking lot” “PGE provided nothing.” “Accordingly, attached is a bill which reflects Corbett Fire’s diesel fuel costs for running its emergency generator to provide the services to which PGE had committed.”
The fire district went on to list some of the dangers that the community faced because of PGE’s unilateral actions: “the risk presented by hundreds of generators being used over the 60-hour [outage], elderly residents without cooling and other basic household utilities and power, and rural residents with electric well pumps who were suddenly out of water.”
“Corbett Fire was essentially subjected to a dangerous solution to a problem that did not exist.”
PGE’s defense of their actions was centered around a new computer model that they had developed, which they claimed was capable of predicting when the danger from their energized system required immediate shut down. It all sounded very high-tech and precise. No one challenged them, until they asked if I had anything to say.
As someone who has been involved with all sorts of computer models over many decades, I wanted to know if they had checked their model against reality. Had they gone out after the September shutdown to see if there had been any damage to their system that might have caused a large fire which Corbett Fire could not control? The answer was stunning. No, they had not found any evidence that the long outage had saved us from anything. “Of course, wires might have touched during the fierce wind,” they speculated.
In other words, their computer model was wrong. It did little more than tell them that high winds and dry conditions increase fire danger. No one needs a computer model to tell them that!
Had PGE calculated the number of times they expected to pull the plug in Corbett in a typical year, using their model? Of course not. The model is just window dressing to disguise arbitrary decisions that protect PGE much more than their customers.
More stunning to me was PGE’s lack of understanding of the science of ‘acceptable risk’. They kept expressing their desire to reduce the risk of electrical fires by shutting down their system. “No one is going to die on my watch,” one employee proclaimed. But a week later, someone died from a collision with PGE equipment, and our power went out again.
I countered that a proper calculation of acceptable risk required them to minimize risk at the same time they maximized benefits. That means keeping the power on. While it is true that they can eliminate all risk of electrical fires by shutting down their system, that eliminates the profound benefits of electrical power. Hence, they are headed in a foolish direction.
That brought the conversation toward reducing risks, much as we do with automobiles. Driving is inherently dangerous but the risks can be reduced significantly by wearing seat belts and driving within the speed limit. No one seriously proposes eliminating the automobile because of the vast benefits of mobility.
What could PGE do to reduce the risk of electrical fires where they might be held accountable? They already trim trees near their power lines. But they could bury lines in problematic areas and better insulate their overhead high voltage wires to prevent the shorting to ground or neutral that frequently occurs now, when a tree falls across their lines.
“But that costs money and would run up your rates,” PGE retorted. I pointed out that their rates are already about double those of other large utilities in this area. Why? Because they have put so much money into windmills that merely increase costs and decrease reliability. If PGE stopped doing foolish things, they would have plenty of revenue to address the shortcomings of their distribution system. Their attempts to impress the Corbett Fire District with their support of “green” nonsense fell completely flat.
Corbett was not the only community to complain about PGE’s unilateral decision to shut down their system in September. State Senator Brian Boquist pointed out that other areas suffered even longer with outages running up to almost 100 hours in Polk and Yamhill counties. “The power was turned off to the ambulance stations, fire stations, medical clinics, grocery stores, all businesses etc. “ PGE refused to meet with them.
What are possible remedies? The simplest would be for PGE to realize that their customers want better service with minimal outages and, at the very least, go back to their previous quality of service. If they do not improve, the Oregon Public Utility Commission can force them to do so.
Senator Boquist suggested that the ultimate remedy would be for voters to convert Portland General Electric into a public utility district and forever remove it from the Enron model of two power plants to do the work of one. Two plants mean twice the guaranteed profit for PGE. That is great for investors but not ratepayers. A public utility district, like Clark PUD, provides superior service at half the cost, because they answer to ratepayers.
Gordon J. Fulks holds a PhD in Physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research. He lives in Corbett and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com.
No Comments
Leave a comment Cancel