From the article: > Climate wasn’t the only factor that is pushing PG&E to a likely bankruptcy. State regulations also played a role. PG&E is required to provi

From the article: > Climate wasn’t the only factor that is pushing PG&E to a likely bankruptcy. State regulations also played a role. PG&E is required to provide electrical service to the thousands of people moving annually in the state’s forested areas. Moreover, an unusual California state law, known as “inverse condemnation,” made PG&E liable if its equipment started a fire, regardless of whether it was negligent. It seems PG&E was liable for a lot while it had limited ability to address the risk of damage from wildfire. I don't think they had any control over wildlife management but bore the brunt of the costs due to mismanagement. They also had their spending overseen by state regulators, which likely tied their hands: > PG&E capital spending plans are overseen by state regulators, who pressed the company to spend more on tree trimming but not, until a few months ago, on other fire-prevention measures such as early-warning weather stations and insulated wires. These policies to make companies liable for everything related to them plays well politically, but it just entrenches monopolies and abdicates blame from those responsible for preventing or limiting the damage of natural disasters.