> I don't necessarily agree with your 'simple logic' - there's plenty of stuff that can be done (but not perhaps outright regulated) that can reduce the inciden

> I don't necessarily agree with your 'simple logic' - there's plenty of stuff that can be done (but not perhaps outright regulated) that can reduce the incidence of fires around electrical equipment. Your objection to the grandparent's "simple logic" seems right to me. Inverse condemnation could motivate utilities to seek solutions that have longer-term profitability but require higher capital investment, something that would be difficult to legislate. For example, PG&E could choose to deliver electricity through underground equipment which would cost more than pole-and-wire networks but might reduce forest fire risk. Legislating such a requirement even for strictly regulated utilities might be more complicated than inverse condemnation. On its face, inverse condemnation does seem to punish utilities even if they are technically in compliance. Perhaps inverse condemnation could exert market influence in ways that are subtler and less technologically constraining than explicit regulation.