More Revolution Skepticism

As I wrote over at TheTelevixen, I found the pilot of Revolution moderately enjoyable, but have serious concerns about the basic premise and whether there will be any satisfying payoff. And now the show's creator, Eric Kripke, is saying things in interviews that I do not find reassuring:

Insider.com: How important is finding out why the power went off?
Eric: It's a potentially controversial thing for me to say, but it's not that important. It's not that I'm not interested, but there are other things that are way more interesting. It was 15 years ago, and I don't know how much you're sweating what happened in 1987, but I'm not obsessed with it. While I know the answer, why the lights went out isn't nearly as important to me as to how they turn the power back on.

Um. NO. Not acceptable. No one I've talked to, or whose reviews I've read, has come up with any coherent theory as to what made the power go out - and especially why a) things like steam engines are also not working and b) people can't take books and previous knowledge and reinvent things. That makes me assume that there was some sort of change in the laws of physics, rather than an event that disabled all devices . . . but then, that doesn't allow for the fact that some people can apparently secretly use a little electricity. And yes, I want to know why this is all happening. If I thought the showrunners had a solid plan to unravel this mystery slowly for narrative reasons, that would be one thing, and I'd be more willing to give them some time. But instead, it feels like Kripke came up with this nonsense universe in which he wanted to set things, without putting much effort into the causes of his effects, and is asking us to just accept his lack of coherent world-building on faith. And the show will have to get very good very quickly in order for me to make that leap.