Protecting California from devastating wildfires was the Legislature’s biggest focus in this year’s session. Recognizing the urgency, lawmakers formed a special wildfire committee, heard from numerous experts, and, after several emotional debates, passed a $1 billion new law they said would “prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect Californians.”
Less than two months later, the deadliest and most destructive fire in state history swept through the mountain town of Paradise, killing at least 48 people and destroying 7,600 homes. So, why didn’t the new law make a difference?
The short answer, according to Gov. Jerry Brown, is that “some things only God can do.”
“We are doing everything we can,” he said to reporters outside his office on Tuesday.
“We will respond as much as we can and as creatively as we can. But this is… what I call the new abnormal. The winds are faster, the temperatures are hotter, the soil and vegetation is drier. This is unprecedented, and it’s tragedy.”
The longer answer is that the complex negotiations that produced the new law left a glaring gap for 2018 fire damage. Many provisions of Senate Bill 901 have not yet taken effect, and even when they do, will impact the state gradually.
A key aspect will likely take years, if not decades, to complete: Thinning forests and removing dead and dying trees that have turned huge swaths of California into kindling. The law calls for spending $200 million a year over five years on clearing trees and brush to make forests less fire-prone—but the money doesn’t start flowing until 2019.
It also requires utility companies to come up with fire prevention plans—but those don’t begin until next year, either. And it creates a five-member Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery within the governor’s office to decide whether utilities can pass costs onto customers and suggest broader changes to liability laws. No commissioners have been named yet, and its first report isn’t due until July 1.
Even the most controversial and hard-fought part of the law—which makes it easier for utility companies to absorb the cost of fire damages by borrowing money and charging customers to pay it back over many years, a provision critics deemed a bailout—does not apply right now. It covers fires that burned in 2017, and those that start in 2019, but not any blazing this year.
“We have been overwhelmed by the risk of fire, and despite all the time and effort we put in, we are still unprepared,” clean-energy lobbyist V. John White told CALmatters. “It feels like it’s a bigger problem than we even imagined, and that’s all we spent most of the year working on.”
In addition to the main fire-prevention legislation, Brown signed more than two dozen bills in September that were inspired by 2017’s deadly wildfires, including measures meant to improve emergency alerts and insurance coverage.
But the shortcomings of the main prevention bill reflect how fraught it was to pass the legislation in an election year, with lawmakers facing pressure from utility companies and their labor unions—which are significant campaign donors—to loosen fire liability laws, and from fire victims and insurance companies to leave the liability law in place.
Lobbying on the issue was intense, with utilities spending twice as much as they normally do. They enjoyed support from some environmentalists who see the companies as critical players in California’s fight against climate change.
If the state is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by law, it needs the utilities to help build components such as charging stations for electric cars and battery storage for solar power. Utilities argued that the liability law was hurting their credit ratings, which makes it more expensive to build clean-energy projects.
In the end, lawmakers did not change the liability law (known as inverse condemnation) that holds a utility responsible for damages from any fire traced to its equipment, even if it was not negligent. Instead, utilities got the controversial provision allowing them to spread out the massive cost of their liability for the 2017 wildfires.
By the time that tradeoff was agreed on, though, with the clock ticking down in the final days of the session and legislators bristling at accusations they were bailing out PG&E, there was little appetite for complicating the fragile consensus by factoring in the 2018 fire season, according to several Capitol sources.
With existing laws still in place to handle liability for any 2018 wildfires, state lawmakers played the odds that utility companies could get through the rest of the year without facing bankruptcy from another catastrophe.
Now the devastation of the last week—and reports that a PG&E power line near Paradise had problems in the minutes before the Camp Fire began—make it likely that the debate will return to the Capitol next year. Shares of PG&E, which already had been sliding, plunged 46 percent Wednesday before ending down 25 percent for the day. PG&E is the state’s largest utility.
Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, said Tuesday that SB 901 is a “good first step” but that he would not opine about what other policies are needed until more facts are known about the latest fires in northern and southern California.
Though the source of the Camp Fire remains under investigation, PG&E said in its Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it would face potential liabilities far beyond its insurance coverage if its equipment is determined to be the cause. In a call with investors last week, PG&E’s CEO said the company will keep trying to change the liability law. “While we're pleased with the progress made, we will continue our focus on reforming inverse condemnation, including as part of the (governor’s) commission's work as it comes together during the upcoming legislative session,” Geisha Williams said.
A spokesman for state Sen. Bill Dodd, who carried the wildfire bill, said the Napa Democrat has no interest in taking on legislation to change liability. And he insisted the prevention aspects of the new law will eventually work. While utilities won’t have mitigation plans until February, the companies say they are insulating wires, adding fuses, deploying high def cameras, installing weather stations, and will proactively shut off power under extreme fire conditions.
“This may not be any consolation to somebody today, but going forward… utilities are going to have to put forth plans to keep their lines free of trees and for preventing new wildfires from starting,” said Paul Payne. “They’re going to have to have specific procedures in place that will prevent disasters.”
But Sen. Jerry Hill, a San Mateo Democrat who voted against Dodd’s bill, said the prevention plans aren’t enough. “My concern is that it allows the utilities to develop the plans themselves, and they haven’t been able to prevent the fires so far,” he said.
Hill, a longtime critic of PG&E, said he is considering legislation to in some way break up the company or shift it to government control. The idea is preliminary, and not at all fleshed out. But it’s another indication that lawmakers aren’t done tackling wildfire prevention. The biggest legislative issue of 2018 is set to make an encore next year.
CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
The massive new homeless problem brought about by the Paradise Camp Fire problem already overwhelms what local and state agencies can handle.
On Friday, hundreds of people descended on the multi-agency relief center in the old Sears Building at Chico Mall. This is where people can apply for all kinds of local, state and federal benefits and programs. It is often a long, slow process.
But the real story is just across the street at the instant village next to and inside Walmart's parking lot, where KTVU met disabled veteran Les Herrick and his girlfriend.
"I've been kind of sleeping in my car for the last two days. We need to set up a tent. We need to stretch out. We're gonna stretch out and relax," said Herrick as he prepared to establish a location.
Besides this overwhelming worry, Herrick says he's been fighting with the Veterans Administration to recover $22,000 withheld from him due to a clerical error.
"Now we have this fire and I could really use that check today," said Herrick.
In a word, the camp grounds, though a well-intended, citizen supported effort, is in reality, a mess that mixes the long term homeless with the new homeless.
"It causes tension between those two groups because you have people who don't have a home any more feeling like these people who are homeless and just coming to take what is theirs," said Lorenzo Morrotti, a San Francisco State Student Journalist documenting the problem.
The ultimate question here: How long can this village be sustained? And that is a question that has no answer.
"These people need out of here immediately. This is a humanitarian crisis," said volunteer Good Samaritan Alexandra Kriz. Wayne Williamson not only lost his rental home, his employer's business also burned down, leaving him jobless and stuck here for now.
"I think it's not gonna last long here. It's not sustainable. The rains are coming. With all these low spots, it's gonna fill up with water. I see a lot of trash. Last night there's fights in the parking lot and I just don't think it is gonna be sustainable," said Williamson.
Pet groomer Alexandra Kriz had her staff shampooed evacuee’s dogs yesterday for free, but had to come back today with baby masks to help humans.
"I couldn't sleep last night and there was a little boy named Eric that I came to find out this morning that was looking at me. He's a year and a half old. He was in a car with no mask," said Kriz.
Additionally, there's the very real worry about eviction. "I heard one rumor on social media that this camp was going to be closed because homeless people had brought in guns and knives," said housing activist Patrick Newman of Chico Friends on the Street.
"There's rumors about them getting kicked out Sunday," said student journalist Morrotti.
"I'm not leaving. Where am I gonna go? I have no home to go to. Where am I gonna go?" asked Herrick.
https://www.puppetstringnews.com/blog/building-in-china-that-houses-google-on-fire-after-google-hearing-in-dc
Obviously everyone should know two things by today, Google obviously has major connections to China and has sold out America to China, and Google has even gone as far as covering up Benghazi for Hillary and Obama with a private server.
The second thing is that Google CEO Sundar Pinchai testified on Capitol Hill today, and oddly enough a building that houses Google in China is now on fire. Google may be burning it's evidence today, but likeQ says we have it all.
The Deep State is now in freak out mode, and this happens after Sara Carter announced on Hannity tonight that there are lots of indictments. The storm may have now arrived.
With rain and snow in the state increasing over the last two winters, experts proclaimed an end to the seven-year drought. But the state still faces a heightened fire danger after more than 147 million trees were lost over the last nine years.
You might have heard that Canada's forests are an immense carbon sink, sucking up all sorts of CO2 — more than we produce — so we don't have to worry about our greenhouse gas emissions.
This claim has been circulated on social media and repeated by pundits and politicians.
This would be convenient for our country, if it were real. Hitting our emissions-reduction targets would be a breeze. But, like most things that sound too good to be true, this one is false.
That's because trees don't just absorb carbon when they grow, they emit it when they die and decompose, or burn. {{yes, it's a cycle}}
When you add up both the absorption and emission, Canada's forests haven't been a net carbon sink since 2001. Due largely to forest fires and insect infestations, the trees have actually added to our country's greenhouse gas emissions for each of the past 15 years on record.
Not surprisingly, then, Canada has historically excluded its forests when accounting for its total greenhouse emissions to the rest of the world. We had that option, under international agreements, and it was in our interest to leave the trees out of the total tabulation, since they would have boosted our overall emissions.
But, just in the past couple of years, we have taken a different approach. We are now making the case to the United Nations that things like forest fires and pine beetle infestations shouldn't count against us, and that only human-related changes to our forests should be included when doing the calculations that matter to our emission-reduction targets.
By that accounting method, Canada's forestry activities would indeed count as a net carbon sink each year. But even then, they wouldn't cancel out our emissions from other sources. Not even close.
To understand why, we have to do a wee bit of math. {{drum roll}}
'More of a source than a sink'
First, the baseline. Our annual emissions.
Canada emits roughly 700 megatonnes of CO2 each year.
This does not include any impacts from forests or other parts of our landscape, such as wetlands and farmland. Canada has historically excluded land-use-related emissions and absorptions in its official accounting, and with good reason, if the goal is to reduce emissions on paper.
That's because our trees, in particular, have actually hurt our bottom line.
For the past 15 years, they've been "more of a source than a sink," said Dominique Blain, a director in the science and technology branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Canada's managed forests were a net contributor of roughly 78 megatonnes of emissions in 2016, the most recent year on record.
Canada's 'managed forest' includes all forests under direct human influence, covering about 226 million hectares in total, or 65% of Canada’s total forest area. (Natural Resources Canada)
This includes all areas that are managed for harvesting, subject to fire or insect management, or protected as part of a park or other designation. It covers some 226 million hectares and accounts for 65 per cent of Canada's total forest area.
In 2015, largely due to raging wildfires, these forests kicked a whopping 237 more megatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorbed.
But when you exclude natural disturbances like fires and insect infestations and look only at the areas directly impacted by human forestry activity, the picture changes.
It's these areas where forests act as a net carbon sink, year after year.
{...}
The bottom line is that our trees — along with our other, plentiful sources of biomass — could be part of the solution in meeting our international agreements on climate change, but that's more a question of accounting than of actual emissions.
{...}"