A Northern California fire is growing at a rate of about 80 football fields per minute

Some interesting updates:

Insurance carriers are using google maps to check tree cover and if you don't have 10' clearance from tree canopy to tree canopy for all the trees within a 100 feet of your house, and no trees overhanging your roof line, you either call a tree surgeon to immediately correct that or they cancel (or nonrenew) your policy.

The loss of life from this fire is heartbreaking. Only one or two ways out, both on the same side, no way out the back. The roads clogged and the people died.

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) the major utility company throughout Northern CA has $30 Billion in liabilities from just this fire and has filed bankruptcy. PG&E electric lines started 17 of the last 21 wildfires in Northern CA. They have a duty to maintain the integrity of their lines (so they don't break) and to clear the easements below the lines of trees and brush. They do not effectively or efficiently do either anymore, although they effectively did both 30 years ago back when they were a company with pride and integrity.

Their bankruptcy filing has some interesting facts:

Environmental activists are now worried that PG&E’s filing will defund green energy projects.

“The state’s environmental and climate goals are at stake,” said John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a non-profit group in Sacramento.

“How are we going to finance all of the clean energy initiatives we need?”

In stacks of court documents, PG&E asked a bankruptcy court to allow it to potentially cancel up to $42 billion in contracts that it signed over the past 15 years to buy electricity from other companies. Seventy-seven percent of those 387 contracts, or 298, commit PG&E to purchase solar, wind or other renewable energy to meet California’s environmental goals, according to its bankruptcy filing.

And many of the deals — known as “power purchase agreements” — were made when clean energy was much more expensive and locked PG&E into agreements for 15- to 20-year periods.

The deals helped finance construction of large solar and wind farms across the state.​

How many lives and homes would have been saved, had just a couple more billion of that $42 billion been spent making sure its power lines are safe.

California’s bureaucratic behemoth, the Air Resource Board, implements its “cap and trade” scheme to control carbon emissions. However, the carbon emissions from the wildfires dwarfed those from standard anthropogenic sources. The 2018 fires released the rough equivalent of about 68 million tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, about the same amount of carbon emissions as are produced in a year to provide electricity to the state.

The monies for those credits and compliance requirements could have also been used to implement programs to reduce the risk of wildfires.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...gy-lead-to-californias-devastating-wildfires/

But that's not sexy in CA. Sexy is green energy schemes. Line and easement maintenance is boring. But then 30 years ago, PG&E was just a boring old, highly reliable, energy company with a stellar reputation for dependability.

 

Leave it to the left to be worried about funding green causes over the lives of Californians.

 

This wildfire issue is much more complex than the biased and untrue comments you state above...

 

Well, if you are in a forested area of northern CA and you want your property insurance renewed, you are probably removing trees right now. Common underwriting requirements are no trees overhanging the roof lines and ten feet of separation between every tree canopy within a hundred feet. If you have two trees with an interlocking canopy or with less than 10 feet spread between the canopy, pick which one you want, because the other one is coming down if you don't want your homeowners insurance cancelled.

And if CA isn't on fire, it's flooding.

As rain continues, CA town now officially an Island.

 

Suuuuuuuuuure

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...houldn-t-pay-for-PG-E-s-mistakes-13162194.php

 

We live in northern CA and we live on acreage and we have trees and we have full insurance and never has the insurance company mentioned what you state above?? No matter, whether or not someone can obtain insurance has nothing to do with stopping wildfires...

 

This is about saving your house, not stopping the fire.

Here is an example with ideas to consider. Even if you don't want to do all of them, every step will likely increase the odds that your structures survive a wild fire.

http://nasdonline.org/1105/d000896/creating-fire-safe-zones-around-your-forested-homesite.html

 

You are correct but remember this IS California where common sense is abandoned and the forest and tree frogs take precedence over everything except the Kardashian's lawn.

 

We've done all of this and it only helps for local and relatively calm fires. When you have the fuel, and a spark, and combine this with 50-75 mph winds, no one and nothing is safe! Huge embers fly through the air over long distances! Fire fighting personnel can't even fight these fires under these conditions. Some of these huge fires in NoCal recently had no fire-fighting for the first 2-3 days. Millions of acres of rural areas have smaller local roads and many private roads and simply do not provide adequate exits to escape the area or for fire-fighters to enter the area. This is an immensely complex topic...

 

We've done all of this and it only helps for local and relatively calm fires. When you have the fuel, and a spark, and combine this with 50-75 mph winds, no one and nothing is safe! Huge embers fly through the air over long distances! Fire fighting personnel can't even fight these fires under these conditions. Some of these huge fires in NoCal recently had no fire-fighting for the first 2-3 days. Millions of acres of rural areas have smaller local roads and many private roads and simply do not provide adequate exits to escape the area or for fire-fighters to enter the area. This is an immensely complex topic...

 

The State government may be stupid but maybe not the Home Insurance Companies that have their own private money at risk.

 

But what if the state turns Socialist and the state runs all the insurance plans? They are trying that now with healthcare.

 

Good job. Reducing your tree cover also helps with tanker drops. Air drops that can reach the ground are much more effective than drops on interlocking tree canopies.

Fingers crossed that your online handle doesn't prove prophetic.

 

Yes, like regulations limiting how much tree removal they can require? Not so far, that I was able to find.

 

Looks like the left coast state is looking to cover for PG&E yet again by shifting the cost and liability to the victims. Typical left coast thinking.

 

No, PG&E is trying to shift blame. It has nothing to do with left anything.

 

The govt is left leaning. Brown and the state of California threw cover for PG&E for years by passing bills to protect PG&E from liability. He is a Democrat. Yeah, it does have something to do with the govt.

Your utility bill could reflect fire costs under new California law
"Culminating months of debate over how to respond to massive wildfires that swept California last fall, destroying thousands of homes, Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday signed legislation that will make it easier for utility companies to pass on their liability costs to customers and bolster the state’s forest management efforts."
"But that sweeping change was dropped amid pushback from the homeowners insurance industry, which feared it would no longer be able to sue utility companies to recover payouts to policyholders. It argued that such a shift amounted to a “bailout” that would leave insurance companies holding the bag, leading to higher premiums or no coverage at all in fire-prone areas."

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article218803990.html#storylink=cpy

California Gov. Jerry Brown could sign wildfire bill critics have dubbed as a 'bailout'
Published 9:43 PM ET Tue, 11 Sept 2018 Updated 9:15 AM ET Wed, 12 Sept 2018

• A California bill that would allow investor-owned utilities to pass on wildfires-related costs to ratepayers could be signed as early as this week by Gov. Jerry Brown.
• The bill has been criticized by some consumer groups who charge it's a "bailout" for California's largest electric utility PG&E.
• Cal Fire has pinned the blame on PG&E for at least 16 of last year's devastating wildfires in Northern California, including some with fatalities.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/12/cal...ign-bill-critics-have-dubbed-pge-bailout.html

 

So nothing passed.

 

Just force PG&E remove their infrastructure from passing through forests and ecosystems, and force them to find another route to get power to customers. Then there will be no one to blame.

Solution: build huge power plants in the middle of cities after big tear outs to clear enough space in cities.

Of course the household bill at the end of the month will have to go up.

 

Senate Bill 901 has passed. That was stated in the very first article linked.

 

PGE is a public utility company regulated by people and the government...100% of their costs are covered by PGE consumers. Since PGE is publicly regulated this means the public also has liability. There is no conspiracy...

 

I never said there was a conspiracy. I said that the governor and government of California has covered for PG&E and their management for years and they continue to now. Rather than hold any of the management of PG&E accountable they just pass legislation designed to give them more cover. They should hold management responsible and they should regulate PG&E in a way to make their operations safe for the public, which they have failed to do.

 

Sorry but this topic is much more complex than you believe. Let's start with inflation that drives up the cost of energy by 2-3% each year. Let's add in the extra costs from fires, floods, etc. Then add in the fact that most consumers scream about rising costs and demand lower prices. Then face the fact that all costs born by PGE are paid for by the consumers, so if PGE wished to remove every tree across their territory that presents a potential problem, the cost to do this would be enormous requiring further rate hikes, which most consumers whine about. Lastly, consider how long it takes to do these infrastructure projects and to sustain the work results...literally years to decades. You could break up PGE into smaller local companies but you will have the same problems.

 

You didn't address one single item that I discussed. Is that an attempt to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the state has avoided regulating PG&E and making them accountable for decades?

 

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investig...-Falsifying-Safety-Inspections-502988162.html

Legislation overwhelmingly passed in the CA senate and assembly and signed by Brown...in our democracy a MAJORITY voted and approved the legislation...can't you imagine those who supported the legislation had solid reasons for doing so? Certainly was not political...