Should Utilities Pay for Wildfire Damage?

What’s the story?

• Seventeen large wildfires are currently burning across California, including the Mendocino Complex Fire, which is the largest blaze in state history. Now, Golden State legislators are asking: Who should pay when power lines ignite destructive blazes?

What’s the law?

• In May, investigators with California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection determined that Pacific Gas & Electric was responsible for 12 fires that caused billions in damage late last year. The blazes, government investigators said, were the result of trees coming into contact with power lines or other failures by PG&E.
• Because of the policy of “inverse condemnation,” PG&E will be responsible for damages, which the utility says could easily cost them $10 billion or more—even if the company is not found to be negligent.

What’s the proposed change?

• Gov. Jerry Brown (D) wants to tweak state liability laws so utilities would no longer be automatically liable for wildfire damage. 
• Brown’s proposal would allow judges to assign responsibility for fires, “weighing whether the utility company followed all safety regulations, how much the property was harmed, and whether safer electrical systems were available but not used,” as NPR reported.
• Brown recently said his proposal is about trying to find a middle ground:

"My goal was to try to find a reasonable balance that will reward players, including utilities, for doing the right thing. But make them liable when they didn't take the steps that common sense and prudence would warrant."

What are both sides saying?

• PG&E argues that the real culprit is climate change—and as a shifting climate makes wildfires more frequent and severe, utilities won’t be able to survive financially if they’re always held liable for damages.
• "California's existing liabilities laws weren't made for the new normal that we face going forward with these climate driven wildfires," said Steve Malnight, a senior vice president at PG&E.

"It's creating really significant financial risk to the utilities which will limit our ability to continue making the investments we need going forward."

• State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, whose Santa Barbara district was devastated by last year’s Thomas Fire, questioned the constitutionality of Brown’s proposed change and argued it would give electric companies less incentive to safely manage their power grids.

“Why should we reduce their liability and expect that they’d do more?” Jackson asked.

• And cattle rancher Richard Atmore of Ventura, who’s suing PG&E over last year’s Thomas Fire, told NPR that utilities “never wanted to participate in the vegetation management practices they did 40, 50 years ago, but all of a sudden they got more interested in profits than they were in prevention work.”

What do you think?

Wildfires are burning across the western United States. Who should be held responsible for their damage? Are they the result of a changing climate? Hit Take Action and tell your reps, then share your thoughts below.

—Josh Herman

(Photo Credit: @ForestServiceNW via Twitter)