5 ms·

I keep waiting for people in less risky parts of California ask why they're paying more for insurance and power so that people can live in risky, fire-prone hil

I keep waiting for people in less risky parts of California ask why they're paying more for insurance and power so that people can live in risky, fire-prone hills and mountains, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

riku_iki 2y ago
people are asking, but can't do anything without major power shift in state government.
- AustinDev 2y ago
  Jungle primaries make this nearly impossible.
- KerrAvon 2y ago
  Those asking might want to have a chat with Florida residents, who have a completely ideologically opposite state government and have the same situation, but with flood insurance. Some risk has to be socialized or no one can live anywhere safely.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    It's not about ideological side, but about group of people having power monopoly and abusing it without consequences. Specifically, current CA governor having close relationship with state wide electricity provider and allowing to hike rates to whatever level they want.
    - seesaw 2y ago
      As an example, my power is generated by one company and distributed by PG&E. I pay $57 for power generation and $140 or so for distribution. PG&E reported close to [1] $2.5B profits for last year. My bills have been going up for $50/month to over $400/month in the last four years. [1]. https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2025/02/15/pge-profit-electric-gas-utility-fire-economy-bay-area-oakland-san-jose/ https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2025/02/15/pge-profit-elec...
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Some risk has to be socialized or no one can live anywhere safely. Why can't people pay for their own risk?
  - GenerWork 2y ago
    >have the same situation, but with flood insurance It's not flood insurance (that's federal), it's hurricane insurance, which is technically wind. I feel that Florida is a bit ahead of California due to the larger insurance price increases. That being said, we're not out of the woods yet, but the reforms from a few years ago seem to be making some progress.
  - tfehring 2y ago
    Insurance requires risk transfer but that's different from cross-subsidization. It's fine for 100 equally flood-prone houses to all pay the same insurance premiums even if only 1 of them floods in a given year. But people in a less flood-prone area, all else being equal, should be paying less for flood insurance. The alternative (aka the status quo) creates market distortions, making it artificially cheap to live in flood-prone areas and encouraging more building there. Plenty of people would still live in those areas even if they were paying actuarially fair prices for insurance. And lots of places are safe enough from natural disasters that they're affordable to live in without cross-subsidization - in fact, eliminating cross-subsidization would make most people's cost of living go down, at the expense of a minority of people who live in very high-risk areas.
polski-g 2y ago
Fire-prone? Managing fire risk is a simple task; California refuses to engage in controlled burns.
- dilyevsky 2y ago
  That is not true. Annual number of prescribed burn acres had been stable since the 70s with a sharp increase in the last two-three years. The main issues are sprawl and aging, above the ground electrical infra
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > Annual number of prescribed burn acres had been stable since the 70s with a sharp increase in the last two-three years. The number of burns isn’t as important as much as how much ground is covered by burns and where. Has anyone studied it in greater detail? > The main issues are sprawl and aging, above the ground electrical infra I am not sure what sprawl matters, but I agree electrical infrastructure that is surrounded by fuel or can be affected by winds is problematic. But that still comes down to local and state leadership doing their job. It’s incredible that such large budgets and large numbers of public employees fail to produce outcomes that are any better than other states.
    - boroboro4 2y ago
      The parent says number of burn acres, not burns.
    - dilyevsky 2y ago
      > I am not sure what sprawl matters, but I agree electrical infrastructure that is surrounded by fuel or can be affected by winds is problematic. without sprawl forest fire is just forest fire. August Complex fire was 10x larger than Camp Fire which caused 80x deaths and 50x damages.
- amluto 2y ago
  Much of the damage was in areas where a controlled burn would have been impossible due to geography. And the kind of vegetation in the burn area isn’t suited to controlled burns anyway: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/techne/why-shrubland-makes-southern-californias-wildfires-inevitable/ https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/techne/why-shrubland-make...
KerrAvon 2y ago
Which less risky parts of California are you referring to?
snakeyjake 2y ago
You think it is inappropriate to live in a fire prone area. Your arbitrary line of appropriateness is wrong. My arbitrary line of appropriateness is right. It is inappropriate to live anywhere where there is a fire, earthquake, blizzard, sink hole, volcano, heat wave, tornado, and hurricane risk but also where there is not ample local (as in constrained to a single independent self-governing body) water, energy, and food resources. Only those parts are truly less risky parts.
- tfehring 2y ago
  There's no need to draw a discrete line and say it's inappropriate to be on the wrong side of it. People should be able to live where they choose. But people should also pay actuarially fair insurance premiums and market-driven prices for energy and other services, based on those risks and the associated cost to serve them. That's not happening today, because market distortions created by government entities force people in lower-risk areas to cross-subsidize expenses for people in higher-risk areas.

riku_iki 2y ago

people are asking, but can't do anything without major power shift in state government.

AustinDev 2y ago
Jungle primaries make this nearly impossible.
KerrAvon 2y ago
Those asking might want to have a chat with Florida residents, who have a completely ideologically opposite state government and have the same situation, but with flood insurance. Some risk has to be socialized or no one can live anywhere safely.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  It's not about ideological side, but about group of people having power monopoly and abusing it without consequences. Specifically, current CA governor having close relationship with state wide electricity provider and allowing to hike rates to whatever level they want.
  - seesaw 2y ago
    As an example, my power is generated by one company and distributed by PG&E. I pay $57 for power generation and $140 or so for distribution. PG&E reported close to [1] $2.5B profits for last year. My bills have been going up for $50/month to over $400/month in the last four years. [1]. https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2025/02/15/pge-profit-electric-gas-utility-fire-economy-bay-area-oakland-san-jose/ https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2025/02/15/pge-profit-elec...
- gruez 2y ago
  >Some risk has to be socialized or no one can live anywhere safely. Why can't people pay for their own risk?
- GenerWork 2y ago
  >have the same situation, but with flood insurance It's not flood insurance (that's federal), it's hurricane insurance, which is technically wind. I feel that Florida is a bit ahead of California due to the larger insurance price increases. That being said, we're not out of the woods yet, but the reforms from a few years ago seem to be making some progress.
- tfehring 2y ago
  Insurance requires risk transfer but that's different from cross-subsidization. It's fine for 100 equally flood-prone houses to all pay the same insurance premiums even if only 1 of them floods in a given year. But people in a less flood-prone area, all else being equal, should be paying less for flood insurance. The alternative (aka the status quo) creates market distortions, making it artificially cheap to live in flood-prone areas and encouraging more building there. Plenty of people would still live in those areas even if they were paying actuarially fair prices for insurance. And lots of places are safe enough from natural disasters that they're affordable to live in without cross-subsidization - in fact, eliminating cross-subsidization would make most people's cost of living go down, at the expense of a minority of people who live in very high-risk areas.

polski-g 2y ago

Fire-prone? Managing fire risk is a simple task; California refuses to engage in controlled burns.

dilyevsky 2y ago
That is not true. Annual number of prescribed burn acres had been stable since the 70s with a sharp increase in the last two-three years. The main issues are sprawl and aging, above the ground electrical infra
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Annual number of prescribed burn acres had been stable since the 70s with a sharp increase in the last two-three years. The number of burns isn’t as important as much as how much ground is covered by burns and where. Has anyone studied it in greater detail? > The main issues are sprawl and aging, above the ground electrical infra I am not sure what sprawl matters, but I agree electrical infrastructure that is surrounded by fuel or can be affected by winds is problematic. But that still comes down to local and state leadership doing their job. It’s incredible that such large budgets and large numbers of public employees fail to produce outcomes that are any better than other states.
  - boroboro4 2y ago
    The parent says number of burn acres, not burns.
  - dilyevsky 2y ago
    > I am not sure what sprawl matters, but I agree electrical infrastructure that is surrounded by fuel or can be affected by winds is problematic. without sprawl forest fire is just forest fire. August Complex fire was 10x larger than Camp Fire which caused 80x deaths and 50x damages.
amluto 2y ago
Much of the damage was in areas where a controlled burn would have been impossible due to geography. And the kind of vegetation in the burn area isn’t suited to controlled burns anyway: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/techne/why-shrubland-makes-southern-californias-wildfires-inevitable/ https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/techne/why-shrubland-make...

KerrAvon 2y ago

Which less risky parts of California are you referring to?

snakeyjake 2y ago

You think it is inappropriate to live in a fire prone area. Your arbitrary line of appropriateness is wrong. My arbitrary line of appropriateness is right. It is inappropriate to live anywhere where there is a fire, earthquake, blizzard, sink hole, volcano, heat wave, tornado, and hurricane risk but also where there is not ample local (as in constrained to a single independent self-governing body) water, energy, and food resources. Only those parts are truly less risky parts.

tfehring 2y ago
There's no need to draw a discrete line and say it's inappropriate to be on the wrong side of it. People should be able to live where they choose. But people should also pay actuarially fair insurance premiums and market-driven prices for energy and other services, based on those risks and the associated cost to serve them. That's not happening today, because market distortions created by government entities force people in lower-risk areas to cross-subsidize expenses for people in higher-risk areas.