Xcel Energy facilities “appear to have been involved in an ignition” of a giant wildfire that’s been blazing across the Texas Panhandle since last month, the company said in a statement Thursday.
The utility did not provide additional details on how it came to the determination, but said it was based on “currently available information.”
“Xcel Energy disputes claims that it acted negligently in maintaining and operating its infrastructure; however, we encourage people who had property destroyed by or livestock lost in the Smokehouse Creek fire to submit a claim to Xcel Energy through our claims process,” the statement said.
The Texas A&M Forest Service said Thursday investigators determined the Smokehouse Creek Fire — the biggest in state history, burning well over 1 million acres — and the Windy Deuce Fire were caused by downed power lines that ignited the flames.
The forest service did not say whether the power lines that ignited the fires belonged to Xcel Energy.
The ongoing Smokehouse Creek Fire is the largest blaze in state history, burning more than 1,059,570 acres, according to the forest service. Two people have been killed in the blaze and authorities estimate 500 structures have been destroyed as a result.
These companies refused to upgrade or even maintain their equipment, and citizens and customers pay with their lives and property.
Tell me, Joe and Glenn, what should happen to Xcel Energy? How should they be held responsible. Or do you think they SHOULDN’T bear any responsibility?
It was clear from the beginning that the all-time biggest vegetation fire in Texas was started from a power line. Of course, there's always the California solution. They can't afford to upgrade their wretched physical plant either, so when the wind blows, they turn off the power. Sells a lot of generators.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
ZoWie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 11:21 am
It was clear from the beginning that the all-time biggest vegetation fire in Texas was started from a power line. Of course, there's always the California solution. They can't afford to upgrade their wretched physical plant either, so when the wind blows, they turn off the power. Sells a lot of generators.
That’s why the companies LOOOOVE de-regulation. So they don’t have to spend money maintaining their equipment.
Power companies should never have been de-regulated. I was living in Texas when they did it, and they promised how prices would drop so damned much. They didn’t. Our costs went up afterwards. Just more money to the corporations. Fuck the customers.
Agreed that energy de-regulation was the second worst idea ever. The utilities got caught out by increased oil and gas prices and poor planning, and ran to Mommy in Congress for help.
The first worst idea ever will always be the substitution of Soviet style propaganda for debate.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
These companies refused to upgrade or even maintain their equipment, and citizens and customers pay with their lives and property.
Tell me, Joe and Glenn, what should happen to Xcel Energy? How should they be held responsible. Or do you think they SHOULDN’T bear any responsibility?
If they did anything illegal which caused the fire then yes. If they were operating inside the law then no.
What do you propose should be done done to them?
Glennfs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:53 pm
If they did anything illegal which caused the fire then yes. If they were operating inside the law then no.
What do you propose should be done done to them?
Don’t you think they should have some monetary responsibility for damage done and lives lost? Yes or no?
Glennfs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:56 pm
Not a binary question
If they were not in compliance with the laws and regulations then yes.
If they were in compliance with the laws and regulations then no
Well, when you “deregulate” that takes regulations down. So, you’re saying that they aren’t responsible for their actions. I mean, if someone gets hurt on your property because you were negligent, you can be sued even though didn’t break any laws.
You don’t think corporations should be held accountable for their actions?
gounion wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:59 pm
Well, when you “deregulate” that takes regulations down. So, you’re saying that they aren’t responsible for their actions. I mean, if someone gets hurt on your property because you were negligent, you can be sued even though didn’t break any laws.
You don’t think corporations should be held accountable for their actions?
Again and for the third or is it fourth time. If they were in violation of laws or regulations then they should be held accountable.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 3:07 pm
Again and for the third or is it fourth time. If they were in violation of laws or regulations then they should be held accountable.
Well, not doing maintenance isn’t against the law. I guess that means they have zero responsibility. Got it.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 4:05 pm
Yes, if they are in compliance they did nothing wrong.
Why even have regulations if you are going to get blamed even when you are compliant.
Because you should have responsibility for your actions.
Toonces wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 4:53 pm
If a theme park operator does the bare minimum in maintaining their rides, should they be held accountable if a ride fails and injures people?
Personally, I feel that there should be some culpability, but perhaps that is wrong.
Look, the law says they have liability for negligence, and can be sued for such. It’s just obvious that Glenn doesn’t agree with that.
I’m not surprised. But I bet if something happened to Glenn, he’d be happy to sue.
Toonces wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 4:53 pm
If a theme park operator does the bare minimum in maintaining their rides, should they be held accountable if a ride fails and injures people?
Personally, I feel that there should be some culpability, but perhaps that is wrong.
Nothing prevents an injured party from suing a public utility for ordinary negligence. I would think deferring maintenance falls under that category. Of course saying not and proving it in court are two different things.
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 5:00 pm
Nothing prevents an injured party from suing a public utility for ordinary negligence. I would think deferring maintenance falls under that category. Of course saying not and proving it in court are two different things.
Pretty easy to prove since they’ve already admitted to it.
And Toonces, I mean, airlines are culpable when their planes crash and it’s traced back to the company and their actions. If a fellow driver of Glenn’s was negligent in his driving and injured someone, the company is responsible.
And when customers are injured at a place of business, most times the company has responsibility for that - that’s why they are insured.
gounion wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 5:00 pm
Look, the law says they have liability for negligence, and can be sued for such. It’s just obvious that Glenn doesn’t agree with that.
I’m not surprised. But I bet if something happened to Glenn, he’d be happy to sue.
So, in this case, it costs the Texas government X number of dollars, if the state was the injured party.
That's acceptable.
What's not acceptable is going after scofflaws when it costs the Georgia government money, even if the state was the injured party. I guess if Willis was a private corporation...
It's really difficult to follow the logic of everything here. Make it all make sense!!
Toonces wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 5:16 pm
So, in this case, it costs the Texas government X number of dollars, if the state was the injured party.
That's acceptable.
What's not acceptable is going after scofflaws when it costs the Georgia government money, even if the state was the injured party. I guess if Willis was a private corporation...
It's really difficult to follow the logic of everything here. Make it all make sense!!
The Willis case is a case involving professional ethics. It isn’t one of civil liability.
gounion wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 5:00 pm
Look, the law says they have liability for negligence, and can be sued for such. It’s just obvious that Glenn doesn’t agree with that.
I’m not surprised. But I bet if something happened to Glenn, he’d be happy to sue.
A few years ago I was hit head on which totalled my car. I didn't sue anyone.
I have clearly stated 5 times now if they are in compliance with the laws and regulations then they should not be held liable. If they aren't I'm compliance then they should be held liable.
Now that I ve explained that and answered you 5 times I have 1 for you.
If they are in compliance with the laws and regulations do you think they should be held liable and if so why?
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 11:15 am
A few years ago I was hit head on which totalled my car. I didn't sue anyone.
I have clearly stated 5 times now if they are in compliance with the laws and regulations then they should not be held liable. If they aren't I'm compliance then they should be held liable.
Now that I ve explained that and answered you 5 times I have 1 for you.
If they are in compliance with the laws and regulations do you think they should be held liable and if so why?
Yes, their inactions caused huge property destruction and deaths. I think they CERTAINLY hold liability.
So when you were hit you paid for the damage out of your own pocket?
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 11:15 am
A few years ago I was hit head on which totalled my car. I didn't sue anyone.
I have clearly stated 5 times now if they are in compliance with the laws and regulations then they should not be held liable. If they aren't I'm compliance then they should be held liable.
Now that I ve explained that and answered you 5 times I have 1 for you.
If they are in compliance with the laws and regulations do you think they should be held liable and if so why?
Being in compliance with laws and regulations may square you with the government. It may keep you out of jail. But it doesn’t necessarily absolve you from civil liability for ordinary negligence. I’m sure it will be offered as a defense but you can still be sued for ordinary negligence and you may still be held liable. It happens all the time.
gounion wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 11:23 am
Yes, their inactions caused huge property destruction and deaths. I think they CERTAINLY hold liability.
So when you were hit you paid for the damage out of your own pocket?
In this case other than the deaths the liability will be relatively minimal. That land is scrub and if you run the numbers one structure was destroyed per 2000 acres burned.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2024 5:28 pm
In this case other than the deaths the liability will be relatively minimal. That land is scrub and if you run the numbers one structure was destroyed per 2000 acres burned.
It’s a lot if it’s YOUR home that’s destroyed. You wouldn’t call it minimal.