> They're made possible by that. The stacking of fuel, on it's own, does not magically create fire. The fire triangle is fuel, oxygen and heat. Oxygen is in th

> They're made possible by that. The stacking of fuel, on it's own, does not magically create fire. The fire triangle is fuel, oxygen and heat. Oxygen is in the air at all times. When the fuel is on the ground, the only thing remaining is heat, and there are both artificial and natural sources of heat. Which means there is going to be a fire whether there is an artificial source or not. > Of course it is. We're talking about liability and costs. It's extremely relevant. We're talking about snookering the electric ratepayer for the cost of inevitable fires by pretending that removing one source of heat could have prevented the fire. There is a plausible case that having more frequent fires is less damaging because it prevents fuel from accumulating. The more fuel is allowed to accumulate the bigger and faster spreading the next fire is when it happens, and the more difficult it is for firefighters to prevent it from spreading into populated areas. > Then no one should live in California at all. There aren't that many fires in modern urban areas because the urban areas aren't full of dead vegetation. The people who choose to live in fire-prone woods are making a different choice. > Do you honestly expect this wouldn't be the _norm_? The issue is that decisions should be made using reason rather than political machinations. Because it isn't actually the power utility paying for this, it's the rate payers. When it should be the people buying houses in a tinder box. > We're talking about millions of people here representing billions of dollars of economic activity. Which seems like a dumb thing to put in places that are inevitably going to be incinerated? > Do we want to measure risk realistically? The way you do this is by putting the cost of the fires on the insurance companies rather than the utility companies, and in turn the insurance premiums of the people who live there rather than the utility bills of the people who live somewhere else. > What about those who inherited that land and home? You're not required to use something dangerous just because you got it from your parents.