6 ms·

Is this the fault of PG&E or is this the reality of climate change - systems that were once safe are now fire hazards in an increasingly dry climate.

gdubs 8y ago
It’s both. The impression I’ve gotten over the years is that PG&E has been negligent. In this situation you have a line they knew was faulty, for quite some time, in a tinderbox, and they sat on their hands.
darkpuma 8y ago
PG&E can't plausibly claim they were unaware California is dry.
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  Especially when they have a meteorology department.
- 0x445442 8y ago
  The only thing that was not "normal" was how late in the year it was before significant rainfall came. Look at the rainfall totals since like two weeks after the fire. It's quite normal for this area to get next to no rainfall from Memorial day into October.
jerkstate 8y ago
They deferred necessary maintenance (including replacing outdated equipment & tree clearing around lines) for years. I'm not saying that climate change isn't an important issue to address, but there was another report just a few days ago: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-delayed-safety-work-on-power-line-that-is-prime-suspect-in-california-wildfire-11551292977?mod=hp_lead_pos5&mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-delayed-safety-work-on-pow... about the necessary maintenance that was deferred. Climate change is being used as an excuse because the fact is there was plenty that PG&E and CalFire could have done to prevent these disasters.
ddebernardy 8y ago
I'm not privy with the gory details, but insofar as I'm aware that seems besides the point. California is dry. They knew it. California is drier because of global warming. They also knew it. Ultimately, this is about the fact that ensuring their equipment is safe (by clearing brush and trees around their lines, etc.) is under their responsibility. And if I got the reporting on this right, they cut corners in doing so.
jrockway 8y ago
I think it's just externalities in action. Fixing your power lines to not sag into trees and warm them up to the point of igniting is expensive. Burning down a city accidentally is cheap (maybe they will be made to pay, but the calculation has to be done as % of a catastrophe happening * cost of fixing catastrophe, which probably ended up quite low). So it's logical what option they went with. As many people have said, the state of infrastructure in this country is not amazing. When New York City got hit by Sandy, power was off for a week. There was a single point of failure with no replacement stocked; for the largest and most dense city in the country. ConEd doesn't care. Maintaining basic infrastructure is the least glorious thing anyone can do right now, and people treat it that way. The results can be deadly.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Nobody gets a ribbon cutting ceremony and their picture in the paper for maintenance.
  - jrockway 8y ago
    The utility companies get really nervous when politicians show up in front of their power lines with giant scissors.
waynecochran 8y ago
You can actually blame the "Smokey the Bear" policies of the last century instead of climate change. The complete prevention of forest fires have lead to heavy fuel loads on the forest floor. Before this, fires were lower in intensity and actually cleaned out ll the debris. Also, many species of trees require fire to split open their cones (e.g., Lodge Pole Pines) and other species of plants need fire for germination (e.g. Manzanita). Ponderosa Pines have thick bark for the purpose of surviving fires -- now the fires are too hot. Look at forest pictures in Central Oregon from 120 years ago -- you could drive a car thru since there was not a lot of debris on the forest floor. Fires used to be a good thing. Native Americans would even manage fires with controlled burns. Now all fires are completely destructive! Source: Dad was a research scientist for US Forest Service.
- cm2012 8y ago
  The thing is...research scientists like your dad have known this for a long time. If this was preventable by allowing more fires, it would be done already.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Research scientists don't have much input to policy. Smokey the bear is cute and Bambi movies are each more powerful forces against doing controlled burns.
- abalone 8y ago
  This is overly simplistic. This fire was not just the result of an accumulation of “debris”. You’re leaving out two major factors: years of severe drought followed by a year with lots of rain. This both weakened older trees and produced a lot of young growth which acted as kindling. Conservatives like to pin the blame in forest management just as a desperate attempt to take the heat off climate change. But the extremes we experienced were the primary factors here, and that’s climate change.
  - setr 8y ago
    >Conservatives like to pin the blame in forest management just as a desperate attempt to take the heat off climate change. Im pretty sure the primary appeal would be failure of widereaching goverment policy, versus climate change.

gdubs 8y ago

It’s both. The impression I’ve gotten over the years is that PG&E has been negligent. In this situation you have a line they knew was faulty, for quite some time, in a tinderbox, and they sat on their hands.

darkpuma 8y ago

PG&E can't plausibly claim they were unaware California is dry.

iscrewyou 8y ago
Especially when they have a meteorology department.
0x445442 8y ago
The only thing that was not "normal" was how late in the year it was before significant rainfall came. Look at the rainfall totals since like two weeks after the fire. It's quite normal for this area to get next to no rainfall from Memorial day into October.

jerkstate 8y ago

They deferred necessary maintenance (including replacing outdated equipment & tree clearing around lines) for years. I'm not saying that climate change isn't an important issue to address, but there was another report just a few days ago: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-delayed-safety-work-on-power-line-that-is-prime-suspect-in-california-wildfire-11551292977?mod=hp_lead_pos5&mod=article_inline https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-delayed-safety-work-on-pow... about the necessary maintenance that was deferred. Climate change is being used as an excuse because the fact is there was plenty that PG&E and CalFire could have done to prevent these disasters.

ddebernardy 8y ago

I'm not privy with the gory details, but insofar as I'm aware that seems besides the point. California is dry. They knew it. California is drier because of global warming. They also knew it. Ultimately, this is about the fact that ensuring their equipment is safe (by clearing brush and trees around their lines, etc.) is under their responsibility. And if I got the reporting on this right, they cut corners in doing so.

jrockway 8y ago

I think it's just externalities in action. Fixing your power lines to not sag into trees and warm them up to the point of igniting is expensive. Burning down a city accidentally is cheap (maybe they will be made to pay, but the calculation has to be done as % of a catastrophe happening * cost of fixing catastrophe, which probably ended up quite low). So it's logical what option they went with. As many people have said, the state of infrastructure in this country is not amazing. When New York City got hit by Sandy, power was off for a week. There was a single point of failure with no replacement stocked; for the largest and most dense city in the country. ConEd doesn't care. Maintaining basic infrastructure is the least glorious thing anyone can do right now, and people treat it that way. The results can be deadly.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Nobody gets a ribbon cutting ceremony and their picture in the paper for maintenance.
- jrockway 8y ago
  The utility companies get really nervous when politicians show up in front of their power lines with giant scissors.

waynecochran 8y ago

You can actually blame the "Smokey the Bear" policies of the last century instead of climate change. The complete prevention of forest fires have lead to heavy fuel loads on the forest floor. Before this, fires were lower in intensity and actually cleaned out ll the debris. Also, many species of trees require fire to split open their cones (e.g., Lodge Pole Pines) and other species of plants need fire for germination (e.g. Manzanita). Ponderosa Pines have thick bark for the purpose of surviving fires -- now the fires are too hot. Look at forest pictures in Central Oregon from 120 years ago -- you could drive a car thru since there was not a lot of debris on the forest floor. Fires used to be a good thing. Native Americans would even manage fires with controlled burns. Now all fires are completely destructive! Source: Dad was a research scientist for US Forest Service.

cm2012 8y ago
The thing is...research scientists like your dad have known this for a long time. If this was preventable by allowing more fires, it would be done already.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Research scientists don't have much input to policy. Smokey the bear is cute and Bambi movies are each more powerful forces against doing controlled burns.
abalone 8y ago
This is overly simplistic. This fire was not just the result of an accumulation of “debris”. You’re leaving out two major factors: years of severe drought followed by a year with lots of rain. This both weakened older trees and produced a lot of young growth which acted as kindling. Conservatives like to pin the blame in forest management just as a desperate attempt to take the heat off climate change. But the extremes we experienced were the primary factors here, and that’s climate change.
- setr 8y ago
  >Conservatives like to pin the blame in forest management just as a desperate attempt to take the heat off climate change. Im pretty sure the primary appeal would be failure of widereaching goverment policy, versus climate change.