PG&E is a bit more nuanced and short-term, though the climate crisis might be contributing with the longevity of droughts and fires.

The issues around PG&E were largely self-reinforcing (I'm either oversimplifying and/or just plain wrong, but this is my understanding from someone who's probably not authorized to speak on the matter):

* PG&E devised fairly minimal maintenance schedules because money.

* Regulators approved said minimal maintenance schedules because it minimized disruption to residents.

* Residents largely perpetuated this by sponsoring politicians and policies that enabled the lack of upkeep.

with the inevitable conclusion being egregious levels of maintenance debt enabling or even causing disasters on massive scales.

Where climate change probably contributed to this entire circle is the "on massive scales" part.

---

Disclosure: This is not my field. I'm parroting something I don't quite fully understand. Someone with more direct experience or exposure to the matter can probably clarify or correct me where needed, to include possibly all of this comment.

Fire risk in California has been growing rapidly over the past two decades.

Fire records have been kept reliably since 1932. Of the 20 largest fires in state history, one dates to the 1930s. None have occurred in the 1940s, 50s, or 60s. Two occurred in the 1970s, 1 in the 1980s, and sixteen since 1999.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires

This is independent of structures or urban-rural interface. The measurement here is area burnt. And despite advances in detection and firefighting methods, the situation has been deteriorating rapidly. All of this is independent of PG&E.

That the utility's equipment has been directly responsible for multiple blaze ignitions is absolutely true. But this doesn't seem to me to be the biggest factor, and a focus on ignition rather than increasing latent fire risk seems to me absurdly myopic.

(The power curtailments themselves seem fairly prudent. Though horribly disruptive.)

Advances in firefighting make the situation worse in general: by killing fires early they allow more underbrush to build up thus ensuing there is more fuel for the next fire.

Probably, though that doesn't seem to explain the entire situation.

Looking to wildfire incidence elsewhere might help give a clearer picture. I suspect, say, that total suppression policies haven't been widespread in Siberia.

The Australian wildfire experience, and fatal blazes in recent years in Portugal and Greece also come to mind.

Seems to me suppression has been a partial, but not complete, contributing factor.

California is unique in many ways, so you can't look elsewhere. In particular California trees are "designed" to go up in flames every few years, so you have to work with it. Most places wildfires are naturally less common, when (not if!) they occur are smaller fires that burn out the underbrush without burning the forest.

In the context of the American West generally (Colorado, West Texas, Montana, and all points west) it's really not that exceptional. The entire terrain and ecology are strongly molded by fire.

I've made numerous trips through the areas, frequently noting either the previous fire scars visible when doing so, or hearing reports of major wildfires and being able to identify specific areas I've been through or stayed.

California has more people and houses. By percentage of affected housing, it's dwarfed by Montana (29%) and Idaho (26%), as opposed to 15% for California.

See: https://www.iii.org/article/background-on-wildfires

(Submitted to HN recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21400931)

Most of North America is molded by fire. However the fires in California are different. Most of North America it is smaller fires that burn underbrush out, but leave the trees (other than a few that have just died). California it is the trees themselves that burn in a much hotter fire. (in California the fires are related to mud slides latter)

The above is historic, modern housing needs to work with it. I'm not sure how you can do that in California.

Is area burned going up because of fuel accumulation? Weather patterns? Less effective response? Better record keeping?

Looks like it's mostly fuel, with some help from weather: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/14/wildfires...

A lot of it is fuel, though that's increasing due to both a century of near-total suppression, which began around 1910-1920, with an "out by 10" policy -- the idea that any fire should be completely suppressed by 10am -- explicitly stated by 1935:

https://www.shraboise.com/2017/09/91317-10-m-policy-u-s-fore...

Other factors are compounding this:

- Diseased forests. Largely beatle infestations and factors such as oak blight. These and similar affect much of the West.

- Monsoon/drought cycles. These both lead to more fuel (monsoon) and drier fuel (drought).

- Weather is a factor. Low humidities (in the past week, down into the teens) and high winds. Disruption of the Jet Stream may be exacerbating this.

- Climate: Shorter wet seasons, longer dry seasons, and more variable weather cycles (heavier rains, stronger winds, lower humidities) don't help.

- Human factors: encroachment on the wilderness interface, ignition sources, building codes, transport routes, etc., effect both frequency and impacts. Many fires are of natural origin, thought that's only about 15%. How much that percentage has changed since 1930 I don't know.

NB: general information and perceptions, though they should stand up.

LA Times lists several of these factors: https://www.latimes.com/local/wildfires/la-me-g-california-f...

This wildfire fighter veteran gives fuel and weather principally: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5nde4/a-veteran-firefigh...

That's similar to a long conversation I'd had with a retired forestry worker in 2007. Chance encounter on a road trip, he talked about the idiocy of total suppression policy at the time. Unfortunately, not citable, though it was a very memorable discussion.

Ignition sources: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-29/how-do-w...

PG&E makes a profit that is calculated as a percentage of what they spend. The government (California Public Utilities Commission) approves their spending proposals and resulting retail rates on that basis. PG&E had the incentive to spend more money on maintenance. The government is the one that has the incentive to keep voters happy by deferring spending on maintenance.

See: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/Ab...

I wish more people knew this, PG&E didn’t take exorbitant profits for the past 30 years at the expense of maintenance. CPUC controls retail rates, and they are politically motivated to keep them as low as possible.

Particularly in the face of expensive renewables mandates. One way to soften the blow of the RPS was to defer maintenance.

This should be higher. Capital expense is where these companies make their money. There is great incentive to modernize their infrastructure and make it more reliable.

On the other hand, operational expenses are frowned upon because that effects the rate payer bill, which the rate payer advocate tends to lean on. Do the math.

Some sources seem to indicate that part of the problem is that they took on large numbers of renewable energy contracts which are not really cost effective (and those companies are subsidized using taxpayer money). If the subsidies to the "green energy" companies was instead used for maintenance and infrastructure, that would probably help as well.

[1] [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/11/pge-wins-court-case-a...]

The feedback loops are in motion.

and the land management crisis