It's politically convenient to blame PG&E for what happened in Paradise. But I would not say it's 100% on them; I've been to Paradise before the fire, and it was impressively beautiful being surrounded by all the trees and nature, like living in a forest. But even back then, I remember thinking it was a massive tinder box that could go up in flames. For reference, here is a picture of an average street in a relatively urban part of Paradise, before the fire [1]. The houses farther away from the main street had even more foliage. The area is mostly older retirees, who didn't have the energy/will to trim back the growing unburnt fuel on their (massive plots of) land. For argument's sake, it'd be like surrounding your house with barrels of gasoline, then putting the blame 100% at PG&E for starting the spark. In fairness part of the blame is on the property owners, or perhaps the local gov't for not taking fire safety measures to limit the spread or damage.

[1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/E83WWnYX2pDjXzxY8

Second that...

I remember driving up the main highway into Paradise, CA and saying to myself "if there is a fire here...anyone on this highway is screwed". Fast forward less than 10 years and I was watching the news reports of people driving blind through the fire at nearly the exact spot.

The entire town was on a ridge with tons of fuel (pine trees)...elevations below that was nothing but dry grass.

Although the fire was caused by power lines...All it would have taken was cigarette butt.

This is a bit like saying the 2020 Beirut explosion was 100% caused by the carelessly dropped cigarette (or whatever started the initial burn; nobody knows).

Well yes, in the sense that someone somewhere did something that triggered the cascade of effects that produced the boom. But assigning "100% of the cause" to that individual just lets everyone else in the chain escape blame.

If it isn't PG&E this year, it will be something else next year. Or the year after that. Like the LNU complex, it could be simple lightning.

Which is not to say that PG&E doesn't bear some responsibility, but "100% of the cause" is too reductive.

Because PG&E was the cause. If a lightening strike caused the fire, then that would be the cause. If a stray arsonist poured gasoline over the field and lit it all on fire, then the arsonist would be the cause. If it was teens lighting fireworks, then they would be the cause.

But none of those things actually happened. PG&E’s equipment caught on fire because it couldn’t handle its normal electricity load anymore, because they delayed maintenance for years.

There is no sense talking about all the things that “could” be the cause in some hypothetical future where PG&E hadn’t caused the fire that actually happened first. Because that would require PG&E to prevent the fire that actually happened, which they did not.

You're ignoring the difference between a small brush fire and a massive wildfire that destroys towns. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other, and when it does, the reason isn't just that there was a spark.