Equipment decades old coupled with IT systems equally antiquated- this is a core problem for all utilities not just PG&E (I would know, I work for one). Unfortunately, I think we can expect more utility faults as well as severe weather that will continue to cause damage to people and homes. Utilities do not invest in IT unless they are incentivized to do so through rate recovery. This has plagued them to fall drastically behind in IT capability and hiring talent, as well as outsourced a majority of their operations (ie. Siemens, ABB, IBM, etc not only provide the solution but are hired to run the project management and strategy). It sucks companies so vital to reliable electricity see IT investment as a balance sheet stop sign but it will not change unless regulators force their hand...

> If you don’t want to sometimes worry about forest fires, don’t build your house in the woods. It isn’t that complicated.

Bushfires in Australia have previously covered more than 10 million acres. Recently people in greek suburbs were literally driven into the sea. It is pretty complicated.

Exceptions to the general rule that fires mostly affect those who live in the woods. Does not affect my assertion that living away from the woods dramatically decreases your risk/worry of being involved in or affected by forest fires.

The SoCal fires this year are not in the woods, so it happens both in the woods (NorCal) and not in the woods (SoCal), and people die and communities are razed both in the woods and not in the woods.

> If you don’t want to sometimes worry about forest fires, don’t build your house in the woods. It isn’t that complicated.

Yeah, like Malibu. Very wooded.

I need to start a wicker-furniture store with good insurance next to a power substation in CA.

Cheaper to short the utility company stocks probably.

If you throw a match with intention and it causes a fire, you will go to prison.

If they neglected fire warnings, there should be some responsability.

Sure. If there was gross negligence, some liability would be reasonable. Probably not 100% of damages, but some. That’s not what we are talking about though. I think under current law they could be liable even if they took all due care.

PG&E bills literally include a line item for maintenance, beyond the basic costs. PG&E has repeatedly issued bonuses and comp packages funded by cash they received from that line item while not performing maintenance of their network.

This is exactly what happened last year (line that they weren't maintaining caused that fire), and when they blew up san bruno (when a gas line that had even been stated to need maintenance exploded and killed people).

If you can make a profit while doing all the required work, then fair play to you, but if you're turning a "profit" without performing all the maintenance your network requires, and then getting tax payer support whenever that goes wrong you are not running at a profit. You're a tax payer subsidized siphon, taking money from tax payers to fund bonuses and investors. If you can't run a profit without tax payer backup, you aren't profitable.