I see PG&E mentioned a lot, but as an outsider, I have to ask, are they just being used as a scapegoat? If you have a tinder-dry forest, yes, the most likely spark is going to be from a faulty electrical line. But sooner or later, that forest is going to burn. If not by an electric wire, then by a lightning strike, random static discharge, sparks from a bit of metal dragging on a car, or some random idiot with a cigarette butt.
I’m honestly curious if there has been any kind of study on this. Do acres near PG&E lines statistically burn at higher rates than those not nearby these lines?
Fires will happen, yes, they happen in cities too. San Bruno for example (hey that was PG&E too).
As long as you take the proper precautions (defensable space), fire retardant building materials, etc, the increased risks of living in a wooded area isn’t that great. Certainly not as great as is reflected in the rate increases.
have to ask, are they just being used as a scapegoat?
Look up the status of the coupling that caused the camp fire and you’ll see that it very much isn’t, there are pictures of how worn the fucking thing was that they didn’t replace for something lime 80 years despite knowing it was in bad shape
They’re a monopoly that raises prices to cover the cost of the fires they caused through negligence
If you have a tinder-dry forest, yes, the most likely spark is going to be from a faulty electrical line. But sooner or later, that forest is going to burn
While our forest management isn’t perfect by any means, if PG&E had done basic line maintenance then multiple of the worst fires we’ve seen wouldn’t have happened.
And that’s on top of all the usual monopolistic horse shit they pull on us normally, they’re a shit company to begin with BEFORE you factor in the fire starting
I see PG&E mentioned a lot, but as an outsider, I have to ask, are they just being used as a scapegoat? If you have a tinder-dry forest, yes, the most likely spark is going to be from a faulty electrical line. But sooner or later, that forest is going to burn. If not by an electric wire, then by a lightning strike, random static discharge, sparks from a bit of metal dragging on a car, or some random idiot with a cigarette butt.
I’m honestly curious if there has been any kind of study on this. Do acres near PG&E lines statistically burn at higher rates than those not nearby these lines?
Fires will happen, yes, they happen in cities too. San Bruno for example (hey that was PG&E too).
As long as you take the proper precautions (defensable space), fire retardant building materials, etc, the increased risks of living in a wooded area isn’t that great. Certainly not as great as is reflected in the rate increases.
Look up the status of the coupling that caused the camp fire and you’ll see that it very much isn’t, there are pictures of how worn the fucking thing was that they didn’t replace for something lime 80 years despite knowing it was in bad shape
They’re a monopoly that raises prices to cover the cost of the fires they caused through negligence
While our forest management isn’t perfect by any means, if PG&E had done basic line maintenance then multiple of the worst fires we’ve seen wouldn’t have happened.
And that’s on top of all the usual monopolistic horse shit they pull on us normally, they’re a shit company to begin with BEFORE you factor in the fire starting