[tshaddox]

> With proper engineering and maintenance, PG&E could probably reduce the frequency of fires significantly, but there's always going to be a non-zero risk of fire, both from power lines and other sources, and it seems basically inevitable that one of them would have started another fire at some point.

I don’t understand. You’re conceding that if PG&E were a competent and responsible company they could significantly reduce the rate of fires. The fact that some fires might still happen doesn’t mean that 10 fires aren’t better than 1,000 fires.

[resonantjacket5]

No the root of the problem is that there's too much forest that hasn't burned. Blaming PG&E is missing the actual problem.

For instance the Beirut explosion was the fault from the welders causing the explosion. Yes, but the larger and more important issue is why are there so many explosives in the first place? California's mismanagement with it's forest is the same issue. These forests should be periodically burned the remove rather than letting them accumulate into such a large blazing fire.

[dragonwriter]

> California's mismanagement with it's forest is the same issue.

The majority (57%) of forest land in California is managed by the federal government even before considering the part managed by tribal governments, which are also out of state control though subject to federal oversight. Only 3% is directly under state control.

47.7% of the total land in California is federally owned (not uncommon in the West, where most federal land is; outside of 12 Western states, the Federal government owns only 4% of the land in the rest of the country.)

Western land management problems are, generally, problems of federal administration, not state government.

EDIT: But, it's important to note I am not saying the fires involving PG&E equipment are a federal problem rather than a PG&E problem. While the current federal administration and their cheerleaders likes to blame forest management and seems blind to the fact that, if true, that would be a federal issue, PG&E’s deliberate, knowing cutting of maintenance corners, curtailing inspections and cutting inspector training, knowingly leaving specific faulty equipment in place years after it was identified as faulty and dangerous, and covering up that it did all those things, are well documented. While they accepted a plea bargain to 84 counts of manslaughter, the facts documented in the investigation would seem to more than support conviction of 2nd degree murder (of the “abandoned and malignant heart” type), based on other cases where that has been applied in CA based on willful disregard of safety factors.

[cogman10]

Yeah, lots of issues came together for the perfect storm.

Personally, I do think that PG&E should have seen a harsher punishment. If some pyro had went in and started the same fire, they'd have been in jail for life. PG&E does this shit and they got a slap on the wrist.

But, your point is very valid. This place was a tinderbox. They were one lightning strike, on cigarette butt, one illegal bonfire away from going up in flames spectacularly.

The federal government has blame for not maintaining land.

Beyond that, they have blame for not aggressively addressing climate change (which has contributed to the level of dryness).

All of this points to a common societal issue. Rather than spend money to fix things, we wait until everything blows up before asking questions.

This shit scares me. How much more of our world is teetering on the edge of catastrophe?

[anigbrowl]

I think one of the key points in that Twitter thread is that the distributed responsibility disincentives anyone from pushing to tackle difficult problems (because no professional or personal liability is involved) and the centralization of profits ensures that the dysfunctional administrative structure stays in place.

[Retric]

You get much larger fires when they go undetected for significant periods of time. Lightning strikes can happen anywhere, but most ignition sources are close enough to people for early responses. Power lines are therefore unusually bad as they regularly start fires in forests a significant distance from people making both detection and response more difficult.

If power companies what to run lines through these areas they need to take responsibility for what’s going to happen.

[blackflame7000]

>"Rather than spend money to fix things, we wait until everything blows up before asking questions."

Are you buying? It's really easy to justify spending other peoples money if you make everything about life and death.

[biztos]

> California's mismanagement with its forest is the same issue.

I agree that the forests should be managed differently, but if this being "California's mismanagement" is an actual thing as opposed to political disinformation, I'd love to see a couple links to back it up.

Some quick googling suggests that it's mostly a Federal problem, which has very different implications especially right now. Am I wrong?

[bryan0]

Here are some articles explaining California's role in forest mismanagement.[0][1][2]

I think what's interesting, and a real problem, is that all reasons about causes of the fires is seen as a political stance, when the factual causes of the fires should be not a political issue.

All of these things are true. They're not political statements: 1. CA mismanaged its forests by not doing proper controlled burns 2. Climate change making conditions ripe for fires 3. PG&E was negligent in maintaining its infrastructure

But people want to assign the blame to either #1 or (#2 and #3), and by doing that they are implicitly taking a political stance.

It's not productive and makes finding robust solutions to these problems harder.

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/why-isnt-california-...

[1]: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article239475468.html

[2]: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Top-scientist-knew-Bi...

[dragonwriter]

> All of these things are true.

That's highly debatable.

> They're not political statements:

At least the first is a political judgement.

> 1. CA mismanaged its forests by not doing proper controlled burns

The vast.majority of the first within the State are not subject to state management; 3% of the forest land is controlled by the state or administrative subdivisions. 57% of forest land in the state (and 47.7% of total land area of the state) is directly controlled by the federal government and some of the rest by federally-but-not-state supervised tribal governments. In between there is some private land which the state has less control over than the state-owned land but more than the federally-controlled land from which it is excluded from management. So even if there was mismanagement by the state, there's very limited potential impact.

> 2. Climate change making conditions ripe for fires

This is true.

> 3. PG&E was negligent in maintaining its infrastructure

This understates the case; PG&E was between grossly reckless and actively malicious in maintaining it's infrastructure.

[bryan0]

I’ll grant your final comment on #3 but on the others I disagree.

If CA was requesting that the federal govt do controlled burns to better protect their citizens from wildfires, and the fed govt refused, then you would have a point, but from the research I’ve done (and I cited 3 random examples above) that’s not what happened. In fact it’s the opposite where organizations which controlled the land desperately wanted to perform prescribed burns, but were prevented from doing so because of local regulations.

As far as #1 being a political judgment: That you think #1 is false and 2 and 3 are true, one can guess how you feel about a host of other political issues, most have which have absolutely nothing to do with forest management.

[ComputerGuru]

What about all the federally owned land in California suffering from the same “mismanagement?”

It’s also not clear to me that - regardless of the party in question - it is fair to call it mismanagement unless credentialed people had pointed out the risk of not allowing controlled burns and the government insisted on doing them anyway because of different priorities, aka mismanagement.

[bryan0]

Read the articles I posted. you can call it what you want, but "credentialed people" have been desperately calling for prescribed burns for years only to run up against local regulations. specifically: "local air boards around the state, and a lack of consistency can create problems for burn projects"

[zbrozek]

It's not news. Fire management folks have been preaching controlled burns for decades.

https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-...

[EricE]

Whats even nuts is many types of trees only propagate with fire. Fires are required to open the cones and let the seeds out.

They are actively killing the native forests by over zealous fire suppression and lack of controlled burns. Environmentalism in name only - sound and fury signifying nothing.

[somesortofsystm]

Humans have known to regulate forest fuels for 1000's of years. This modern stubbornness is hubris based on ignorance of the real technology that has been developed, over tens of thousands of years, in forest management.

[NotSammyHagar]

And #4 almost 50% of the land is under federal control and thus California state govt has very limited influence and ability to ask for burning that.

[dragonwriter]

> And #4 almost 50% of the land is under federal control

Over 50% of forest land in the state, but almost 50% of the total land area of the state.

This is fairly common in the West and wildly different from the situation outside of the West.

[bluGill]

blame the feds, blame CA, blame the natural state of forests in CA... Any way too much blame is on PG&E.

[SQueeeeeL]

What an odd sentiment...

[pixl97]

Why?

There is such a thing as a multi domain fault.

He never said this wasn't PG&E's fault, just that out of 100% they don't bear all the fault.

I mean, California is in the middle of burning down from a lighting complex at this moment. Suing mother nature isn't going to do much good if you want to put the blame on her for that fire.

As long as people live in the Wildland Urban Interface, and we live in a climate that's getting hotter and drier year over year, and we don't have defense in depth around our homes, houses are going to continue to burn and people will die from it.

At the end of the day we cannot stop the fires, they are a natural part of the landscape. The question is can we reduce the impact on humans? Some we cannot, the smoke will still affect us negatively. Some we can, a hard parameter around our house with no flammable bushes, and eves that protect against cinder build up that set houses on fire will help.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

The twitter thread makes this exact point. The camp fire would likely have happened with or without this maintenance error on PG&E's part. This is because a tree fell on a different power line and started the Camp B fire, and this was determined not to be the result of a preventable error. Just that fact alone suggests that the main component of the problem is not PG&E's neglect.

[jschwartzi]

The fires are a direct result of human-caused climate change. I’ve lived in Washington all my life and 2015 was the first year we got smoked out during the summer. Since then it’s persisted year after year.

We’ve completely screwed up our planet.

[johannes1234321]

Crazily dysfunctional country.

The elements of that blew game I got are "climate change makes weather warmer and drier, which increases risk" question about that Mr. Trump said "California is terrible in clearing out the forests" to which it is being responded "we need funding and many forests are federal forests" always good to work on blaming for the past, not to work on a solution for the future ...

[jaywalk]

It's more complex than that: https://reason.com/2020/09/14/western-wildfires-can-be-preve...

[macspoofing]

>I agree that the forests should be managed differently, but if this being "California's mismanagement" is an actual thing as opposed to political disinformation, I'd love to see a couple links to back it up.

There are two narratives here. The Democrats want to blame Climate Change. Republicans want to blame California's mismanagement. Both are correct but there is no policy that any government could implement that will solve climate change in the next few decades. But you literally have Biden going around and blaming Trump for these fires when there is no climate policy that United States could have implemented in the last 2 decades that would have made any difference.

On the other hand, regardless of climate change, California has implemented policies that created this problem and California can implement policies that will prevent future wildfires from spreading out of control. But California is a mess. Controlled burns are constantly challenged in court by activists and NIMBYs and bogged down by environmental regulations. California needs to perform controlled burns of around a million acres of land, but is doing something on the order a few thousand even with a backlog of 20 million acres[1]. Logging policy has clear-cut forest replaced with dense bush[2]. And bad vegetation management policy has been the mantra for decades in California.

In this case, the Democrats are wrong and are engaging in outright lying in order to deflect blame. Climate change is an important issue, but climate change policy is not going to result in a solution for these wildfires.

>Some quick googling suggests that it's mostly a Federal problem

How? How is this a federal problem?

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/why-isnt-california-...

[2] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-14/newsom-clea...

[jartelt]

The vast majority of forest land in California is owned by the federal government and is National Forest land. California can't just go and run controlled burns in those federally controlled forests. That would need to be done in cooperation or under the direction of the US Forest Service and should be funded by the US Forest Service since they own the land.

If the federal government wants better forest management in the National Forests, they should increase funding for forest management and hire more employees into the US Forest Service.

You can certainly blame California for allowing people to build homes at the wildland urban interface and for not requiring homeowners to take better fire defensibility measures. The forests are a more complicated issue and the feds take much of the blame.

[blackflame7000]

If the feds were the problem, why aren't other states such as Texas or Colorado which have similar geographical features to California experiencing the same perpetual fire seasons over and over?

[macspoofing]

Sure - you can have that discussion. What the Democrats are doing is blaming climate change and Trump's climate change policy. Surely you agree that that is just dishonest.

[jartelt]

The only solution to the wildfire problem offered by Trump is that California should do a better job raking up leaves/pine needles and should remove more dead fuel from forests. I think that is much more intellectually dishonest, especially given that Trump is in control of the US Forest Service, which is the agency that would be in charge of raking the leaves and removing the dead trees...

If Trump drastically increases the budget to the USFS and starts a new and improved forest management program, I will gladly applaud the effort. Sadly, I doubt that will happen.

[jvanderbot]

Yes. Climate change should be met with mitigation (to avoid further climate change) and realistic adaptations of forest management.

But, to make matters worse, the baseline expected rate of fires is higher due to climate change, and is much higher due to PG&E negligence.

We can and should attack all factors with regulation, maintenance policy change, etc. The fact is, we had maintenance policies for PG&E's portion, and they were negligent.

[macspoofing]

>the baseline expected rate of fires is higher due to climate change,

Yes. But we can't control the climate. Or rather climate change will require policies spanning decades or centuries.

>and is much higher due to PG&E negligence

Sure. PG&E should be held accountable for their part. But to mark them as a cause is not right. California was a tinderbox waiting for a spark to start the explosion. It could have been anything, and in fact, there were many 'sparks' that started a bunch of these fires. You make PG&E the scapegoat, you're going to miss the true culprit - bad vegetation management.

[rayiner]

What do you mean by “political disinformation?” Some news outlets you don’t like published the story? How much “moral clarity” does the outlet need to have before you’ll consider the article?

[edge17]

Seeing as there is a lot or harangue and no data being presented, here is some data https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-019-0041-0#...

In general, the study contends that the fires are fuel-dominated (too much forest) and not wind-dominated fires. It also contends that the California drought climate has contributed significantly to the problem.

> On the timber-rich interior US Forest Service (USFS) forests of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, anomalously large fuel loading due to a century of successful fire suppression and timber harvesting practices has been a dominant factor

The problem is likely too much forest at these level of droughts, so forest management bears some responsibility. Economically speaking though if PG&E has been given such a lucrative business opportunity as a sanctioned monopoly, they ought to be held responsible as well.

Also, the part that is not clear to me and I would appreciate if someone has an answer - speaking cynically, if PG&E as a private company causes damage and tax payers pay, and if PG&E as a state run company causes damage and tax payers pay, why do I care who runs it? Is it just that the prevailing politics in California is that corporate=bad and civic=good?

[yesdocs]

Under this approach, we would have to burn all of our natural forests down to the ground because of climate change. It will soon be too dry for any forest to be in it’s natural state. Plus I don’t see how this is strictly a California problem, federal funds are required to manage federal lands. Especially since the current federal administration is fueling the onset of climate change like no other. I’ve witnessed the billions spent by PG&E in trimming trees away from these poles, but they should have spent a little more and gone the distance to just bury these lines underground. PG&E is a failed experiment. They have shown when confronted with the challenge of what’s best for the public and what’s best for the shareholders, they always choose the latter

[edge17]

That's not how natural dynamic systems work. There is a level of stability (some optimal level of forest) that the natural system wants to have, and it will naturally burn away excess if the people were not present. Much of the fires this year were caused by lightening (nature).

> Plus I don’t see how this is strictly a California problem

Indeed it is not just a California problem. Believe it or not, there are other places in the country that do more controlled burns and manage fires better. The US Southeast burns nearly 2x the acreage as California on an annual basis.

[dragonwriter]

> The US Southeast burns nearly 2x the acreage as California on an annual basis.

The US Southeast has a land area of 580,000mi², California is 163,000mi². So, just to be even as a proportion of land area, the former would need to burn 3.5 times the acreage of the latter on an annual basis. Unless your claim is that California’s problem is that its controlled burns are too extensive, I'm not sure what your point is.

[edge17]

Not sure what point you're making, but my point is there are individual smaller states in the US that do more prescribed burns by acreage than California. To name a few, Florida, Arkansas, South Carolina [1]

[1] https://assets.climatecentral.org/pdfs/May2019_Report_TheBur...

[yesdocs]

The natural systems are out of wack, my point is that the way the earth is heating up, we would eventually need to burn every forest to compensate for the growing temperatures. This stance is ridiculous. I’m old enough to remember when we didn’t have such ravaging fires, and lightning happened all the time. Better yet, scientists can look at past patterns and they too have proved that climate change is real. Ask a firefighter who’s been around for more then 30 years, they will tell you. The belief that Trump is even remotely correct on this issue is to believe complete foolishness. Alas, here we are.

[cmurf]

Forest management is in conflict with home ownership and building code in the forests, and it's sufficiently complicated that what's happening is the only way forward. What support is there to say private land ownership within forests: federal, state, and BLM land? If there were no private land ownership, there'd be no political resistance to controlled burns, there'd be no demand to put out fires immediately. The instant humans started to build in these areas, their rights directly lead to the changes in natural state of the forests.

There are similar problems with homes on beaches and in flood plains. Not only is private home ownership allowed, it's federally subsidized via the National Flood Insurance program.

[g_sch]

I don't feel like your analogy makes sense here. The fact that there were explosives stored in the Beirut Port for years is exactly the same kind of institutional failure as PG&E failing to maintain their equipment for decades.

It's true that there are natural factors at play here, but in the case of Beirut, that might be more akin to asking "why is there such a large market for ammonium nitrate?"

[machello13]

It's possible for more than one cause to contribute to an event. California needs to manage its forests better, but PG&E is also clearly at fault.

[biztos]

Does California need to do this, or the Federal government?

Where I'm from in NorCal it's all National Forest except for the parts that are private land.

A quick search indicates that some 58% of California forest is managed by the Feds and about 3% by the state.

So -- in addition to PG&E being at fault, shouldn't we be talking about Washington more than Sacramento here?

[bsagdiyev]

California, federal had tried to do controlled burns and was rebuked at local air boards.

[yostrovs]

Which parts are burning? The federal or state?

[biztos]

AFAICT both, with more of it being federal. I also think it matters (in terms of response) where the fire starts.

[Spivak]

My take on this is that PG&E way/is behaving negligently and the investigation that resulted from the fire uncovered that. They are literally the cause of the fire in the sense that their actions are what produced the initial flame.

However, I don't think the fault should lie with them because something was going to start a fire and they just happened to be the unlucky bunch stuck holding the match. There is no way you could say "if it wasn't for their negligence there wouldn't have been a fire."

[machello13]

> There is no way you could say "if it wasn't for their negligence there wouldn't have been a fire."

This thread is going in circles. What people are saying is that PG&E should be expected to do what's required of them to maintain their equipment, and that failing to maintain their equipment was a cause of this specific fire. You're right, it's basically bad luck that their decades of negligence led to this disaster, but it still did lead to it. Whether or not there was a pre-existing condition that made fires more likely.

[resonantjacket5]

Because the majority of fault lies at California/Federal government whoever is in charge of clearing the forests regularly not PG&E.

Again going back to the Beirut Explosion analogy -- yes the welders could have taken better precautions. Perhaps someone could have maintained the explosives better too. Maybe we could even hire firefighters on standby and install alarms next to the port.

But none of this removes the large pile of explosives that shouldn't be placed there.

[jagged-chisel]

That dockside warehouse needs to handle its explosives better, but the welder is clearly at fault.

[coryfklein]

If PG&E is maintaining power transmissions lines that are surrounded by a known gigantic reservior of combustible material then they are still responsible for when their equipment ignites that material.

That doesn't remove the onus on land management to engage in best forestry practices, but PG&E still has a significant burden of responsibility.

[jerska]

I don’t disagree with your point that there’s shared responsibility.

But a big reason the welders aren’t the focus of the blame is that they were the first ones to die in the explosion.

The consequences for PG&E were simply 4 millions here, which is a ridiculously small amount.

Also, you don’t treat individuals and companies the same way.

[EricE]

> Blaming PG&E is missing the actual problem.

No, two things can be true at the same time.

1) CA sucks at forest management. 2) PG&G was grossly negligent in maintaining their power lines.

That both happened to be true at the same time just happened to be exponentially bad for all the people affected :(

[briffle]

That is part of it, the other part is the homes of paradise did not take 'best practices' into account for their homes. (or town, that one narrow road out seems like a deadly bottleneck) There were many news articles at the time talking about how homeowners couldn't prune back the woods far enough from their house, couldn't use less flammable materials in their home construction, etc.

[mint2]

The only way to get developers and builders to build more resiliently is more strong regulation. As it stands, developers have zero incentive to cut into their profit to build a fire resistant structure since they immediately sell it and it doesn’t matter what happens after that, at least to them. In fact, If they are a follower of the perverted philosophy of the past couple decades, if have shareholders it would be their duty to maximize profits by not spending extra.

[Akronymus]

The policy of not clearing underbush at all just seems ripe for even more wildfires.

[mschuster91]

A wildfire that regularly clears out only the underbush is what was the place historically (and the ecosystems have adapted to this), human prevention of these fires plus climate change has led to fires consuming way more material than they should.

[mdavidn]

No, the problem is that PG&E was relying on a century-old part of unknown metallurgy to suspend a 115 kV conductor.

[wrycoder]

Worse. They ignored the easily inspectable fact that the part was worn halfway through.

There must be many more like this. Have the been replaced?

[awalton]

> Yes, but the larger and more important issue is why are there so many explosives in the first place?

Ah, so the problem is negligence. And what negligence was there? PG&E not maintaining their towers as clearly documented (or rather, not documented as the thread shows), or even possibly the federal government not maintaining Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest lands? No - it's California's fault, spoken as if even a healthy forest wouldn't burst into flames if someone threw molten hot aluminum on a kindling pile.

But where could that idea possibly have come from? Perhaps the Federal govermnent, whose head has basically been parroting that exact line? What an astounding coincidence.

[resonantjacket5]

The problem has been built up for decades through both democratic and republican administrations.

[skytreader]

I think the point is PG&E should be blamed for negligence but not for the fire[1]. They could follow all regulation to the letter and there will still be a non-negligible chance that their infra will cause a fire simply because existing regulation is not suitable for the environment their infra stands at.

[1] Although I think the thread is rather vague as to the damages assigned to PG&E no?

[noselasd]

That's usually not how laws works though. If you act irresponsibly, break laws, don't perform due dilligence and so on, you are also responsible and get blame for the consequences.

If you act in good fait, follow all regulations, act responsible, the law might see it as an accident where you don't get blame.

[mensetmanusman]

With this logic, one would blame welders for the Beirut bombing, because they weren’t wearing side shields on their safety glasses.

[zaarn]

Well, they clearly did not establish the fire load in the immediate area of the weld, as is common safety practise in the industry. You wouldn't want to weld near an active gas line either, you want to ensure it's not filled with gas.

[legulere]

1000 fires would actually be probably better than 10 because they help keep flammable material at bay and reduce the size of the fires.

[andi999]

Is there data from California about lightning as a fire cause? I read in Canada about 50% of all forest fires are started by lightning.

[gpapilion]

Coastal California lightning is rarer as is thunderstorms. Eastern California they are more common, but no where near Midwest levels.

The storm that can through last month started several of these fires with dry lightning or very little rain accompanying the lightning.

[dcanelhas]

Lightning may coincide with rainfall, I've heard. If this is true one might presume less severe fires as a result.

[mannykannot]

It is a simple fact that lightning does start fires, especially in places like the American west, where lightning is not always accompanied with much, or any, rainfall at ground level. The severity of any fire is determined by how it develops in the hours and days that follow its ignition, long after the storm has moved on or dissipated.

[dcanelhas]

That's not disputed. But starting a fire in completely dry conditions is worse than starting one that potentially coincides with rainfall, all other things being equal.

[andi999]

Falling from a height of 10.1m is also worse than falling from 10.0m all other things beeing equal

[Rapzid]

The LNU and SCU lightning complex fires have burned about 750,000 acres. The August complex(also started by lighting) has already burned 796,000 acres.

[taneq]

So your saying we should introduce chaos monkeys into power grids to improve robustness?

[extropy]

Actually yes, since they have a huge incentive to Run to Failure. Chaos monkeys would provide a consistent source of failures to make them do their maintenance.

Similar to red teams in security.

[dfsegoat]

While I appreciate the merits of chaos engineering, this comment lacks an understanding of the impact of these incidents, particularly in rural areas with a history of forest mismanagement.

People die [like my neighbors here in Sonoma, CA] - it's not an EC2 instance that gets replaced.

Further, one does not just 'restore' the power grid after an outage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_outage#Restoring_power_a...

[sitkack]

You can do simulations, either run it in forward or reverse. Pick a random town, burn it down, run the flame front backwards and find the paths and lines that caused it. Then look at the probable failure rates of those lines.

Run it forwards, pick and event and allow it to run its course.

When designing simulation runs there are bunch of dimensions to consider

* Fidelity or simulation resolution, spatial and temporal

* Number of runs, it is a linear search, spatial search, random, gradient

* If you are testing specific parameters, like will this bridge hold this static load, multiple simulation runs are done with the inputs varied slightly, input sensitivity analysis. [1]

The simulations don't have to be entirely on the computer, they could also couple with them physical and human components. One could page k/n employees that might be on duty at the random time. Response times in real life could be inferred by response to the actual pages. But people were harmed, no actual failures occurred.

If society approached civilization seriously, we would apply the full power of science AND engineering while we fail horribly at the application of engineering and suffer its excesses.

Given other pro PG&E comments in this thread, and how so many factors were in play and this and that. It all boils down to money and acceptable risk and how to package that up in a way that PG&E gets a slap on the wrist. Well done!

It very well could be that we as a society, decide we are ok with these risks, but that we need mediation. And it could be that we A) turn off at risk lines during likely conditions, as shown in simulation or via direct perception B) Have fire bomber planes in the sky during high likely occurrences.

But money is cheaper. You gotta spend it to make it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_analysis

[dfsegoat]

OK. I like the increased utilization of simulations idea.

Your Option A is basically how it is done already for Public safety power shutoffs: they (PGE) have an extensive forecasting department, and they de-energize certain areas for risk based on their analyses. It doesn't work all the time: E.g. Camp Fire [2].

B isn't really an option when many of these incidents occur overnight. Otherwise Cal Fire already fly's their spotters during the day during Red Flag events. And their is a network of remote cameras (alertwildfire.org) for surveillance.

This all is beside the point though: Controlled burns in CA have decreased by 50%+ since the 90s/2000s, and 90s era environmental policies killed logging operations in a lot of CA. Fuel built up, and after that, thermodynamics take over.

If we can get back to mitigating the fuel load - controlled burns [1], and require PG&E to put more budget towards brush clearance and line maintenance - instead of mandating they enter into losing renewable contracts [3] - then we can certainly avoid a lot of these issues.

1 - https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-...

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_(2018)

3 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-wins-ruling-allowing-it-to...

[webnrrd2k]

I suspect that the best results may come from simpler modeling, such as modeling the system with a physical model,like modeling aerodynamics in a wind tunnel, or boat hulls in a wave tank.

How much would it take to make a useful scale model in a warehouse somewhere? I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to understand how the smaller scale would relate to real-life fires, but it certainly seems plausible that, for a relatively small outlay, we'd have an important tool for establishing a much better understanding of wilderness fires. Given how much CA alone spends fighting forest fires, a 10 or 20 million project to build facilities and fund researchers seems like an obvious and much needed project.

[chaz6]

That makes sense, but can we do it in winter when it is less likely to start a fire?

[WJW]

Isn't the point that starting fires regularly keeps any particular fire small due to lack of fuel (since it has been burned in previous fires)?

Seems like doing it in winter would defeat the purpose.

[maxerickson]

The committee to keep the chaos convenient and comfortable.

[TeMPOraL]

No, GP is saying you need to start doing controlled fires on a regular basis, to reduce the accumulation of flammable material. Power grid is not related to that.

[Cthulhu_]

That's not down to an energy company though, that's down to forest management which is troubled by funding and politics.

[Dylan16807]

Only if they occur often enough.

PG&E isn't setting fires often enough to do that, so the downsides of every random fire they set strongly outweigh the upsides. If we need more fires, we should use carefully planned ones.

[chipsa]

PG&E isn't in the business of setting fires, and shouldn't be. It's CalFire's job to manage forest fires, including setting controlled burns.

[patcon]

Support for 1,000 fires being better than 10: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/a-trailblazing...

[techie128]

This is a ridiculous argument. Why don't we forcefully tear down all of PG&E's infra every few years. They'll be forced to rebuild it with the latest safety standards... smh

[viraptor]

It lacks context, but the idea itself is not ridiculous. That's pretty much how original Australians dealt with fuel buildup. Move and burn often. Given specific ecosystem, in a very literal sense, 1000 fires are better than 10 in the same area over the same time period.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I lived in Africa. The parks used to run controlled burns, every year or two, of the savanna grass.

They tended to do this during the [very] wet season.

But PG&E is still on the hook for taking better care of their infrastructure.

It all comes down to dollars and [non]sense. Some actuary has determined that an occasional lawsuit and rotten press run is cheaper than maintaining the wires.

Here in New York, many of the buried water mains that transfer water to the city from upstate are well over a century old. Many are made of cast iron, and even wood.

There’s no plan to dig them up and replace them with more robust materials. They just wait for them to fail, then replace the small part that failed.

They do give city water some real taste, though. It’s probably actually nutritious.

[jsymolon]

> water mains that transfer water to the city from upstate are well over a century old. ... They just wait for them to fail, then replace the small part that failed.

At some point, all the older parts will get so old that it fails frequently and at a greater rate, that the fix cost will greatly exceed the budgeted amount.

Being a quite cynical person, I would say that up to that point management will have collected fat bonuses, then cry poverty and push for ruinous rate increases.

Along the same lines, CT just had an issue with a rate increase that doubled most bills.

The point being spreading out the cost over years and limiting "downtime" is a lot better than 1 huge event that leaves customers without. (re: Detroit and bottled water)

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/eversource-and-ui-a...

[krallja]

> There’s no plan to dig them up and replace them

Yes, but that’s disingenuous. The largest civil engineering project in America right now is the new water tunnel for NYC. It’s been in progress for fifty years.

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

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Thanks for that. I’d completely forgotten about it. Hopefully, it wasn’t planned by the same folks that planned East Side Access. I have three friends that have retired, while working on it, and it’s many, many years behind schedule. Each of them had planned to be still working for the MTA, when it was done.

[andyv]

We went with that plan at my HOA for some of our water lines.

They replaced a corroded and failed section of pipe, repressurized the line and POP! went the next section... Two or three times as I recall.

[cesaref]

No, the point is I think that they could reduce the risk further, they are currently maintaining their network, the question is what benefit would be gained by increasing the cost of their maintenance, or whether they would be absorbing the risk from someone else's lack of maintenance (e.g clearing forest debris/making fire breaks). Remember, power lines are not the only source of fires, lightning being a much more frequent cause and power grid maintenance isn't going to alter that risk

[macspoofing]

>You’re conceding that if PG&E were a competent and responsible company they could significantly reduce the rate of fires.

No. He's saying that even if "PG&E were a competent and responsible company", the fire would still start, but through some other mechanism because it is a powder keg waiting to be set off by something. California wildfires are due to bad forest management policy spanning decades.

[klmadfejno]

Suppose the government left barrels of leaky oil around, then you cause a small fire, which escalates into a huge fire as a result. It's fair to say that you caused the fire. It's probably also fair to say that the bulk of damages are due to government negligence. The debate is where we fall on that spectrum. I would think the power company should be punished as if it caused fires on an average managed forest but there's going to be nuance.

Point is there's two parties with some degree of negligence.

[baddox]

But that’s not the full analogy. The full analogy would be that the government left oil barrels around the whole state, and you went around the state starting hundreds of small fires, and if you had not done that, there would still have been a few fires from other sources, but there would be far fewer fires overall.