Updated on Sept. 9, 2020.

With California wildfires, it seems that every year brings a new record for “more”: More acres, more frequent, more extreme, more deaths, more destruction.

So it figures that along with all the other misery that 2020 has piled on us, it’s shaping up as one of the worst fire seasons on record. By Labor Day, more than 2 million acres had burned, and the worst of the season is just getting started.

Residents may be hoping state officials resolve this quickly, but the truth is that the easy calls already have been made in handling California’s wildfire crisis. We’re clearing brush, spending more on firefighters, hastening insurance claims. We’ve tied the pay of utility executives to their companies’ safety records. To save lives — and liability costs — during red flag conditions, we’ve cut power to great swaths of the state.

We’ve spent billions, but it hasn’t been enough, and as Californians now face the realities of climate change, the only choices left are hard vs. hard: Ban wildland homebuilding. Bury power lines. Build microgrids. Break up the state’s largest utility and give its aging, spark-spewing equipment to taxpayers or customers or hedge funds or Warren Buffett. Burn nature before it burns you.

So what are our options at this point? Here are a few — with pros, cons and political odds.



Why don’t we stage more controlled burns? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link Fire crews working in the Tahoe National Forest are clearing hazard trees within a prescribed burn area. That’s where fires are intentionally lit for forest health projects. Photo by Ezra Romero / Capital Public Radio The idea: Fighting fire with fire has been going on in California since before European settlement. If carefully planned and monitored, these small purpose-set fires can quickly remove dangerous fuels and dead trees. The pros: Clearing trees and brush is a critical component of California’s approach to fire mitigation, and using strategically set fires to do that is an inexpensive alternative to tree cutting: Sending crews in to physically remove trees can cost as much as $1,400 an acre. Controlled burns are a relative bargain, coming in at about $150 an acre. Small, low-intensity burns are ultimately healthy for forests. And it’s more efficient than that raking-the-forest-like-Finland idea … The cons: Even closely monitored burns discharge polluting and unhealthful smoke. It’s not uncommon for a prescribed burn that took two years to plan to be scrubbed because residents in a nearby town complained. Also the flames can be dangerous and it’s a bit jarring to see firefighters set fires. The odds: Very good, an 8. Under a plan agreed to in August, the state and the U.S. Forest Service set a goal to thin 1 million acres a year by 2025, which would roughly double the current rate. Controlled burns would be a part of that work. Everyone likes the idea of controlled burns, in theory. But we may have to get used to them as a norm.



Why don’t we throw more people and equipment at fires? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link Cal Fire tanker drops flame retardant. Photo courtesy of Cal Fire. The idea: We are Americans. More is better. Why can’t we have everything? The pros: Fire folks like to talk about “tools in the toolbox.” Who doesn’t want the biggest toolbox with the latest tools to tackle a dangerous and unpredictable job? Why use puny WWII-era prop planes when you can call up a retrofitted 747 jumbo jet patrolling the sky like a pterodactyl, dousing flames with nearly 19,000 gallons of retardant? Even when machines are grounded by wind, it’s reassuring to have them near. The cons: Some wildfires are predictable, inviting crews to swarm over them, all-but stamping them out with their boots. Those polite fires don’t tend to be California fires. The infernos menacing Northern and Southern California are driven by powerful winds, typical for this time of year. Putting resources in front of those flames is dangerous and not always effective: Aircraft and machines and people in uniform may not stop a wind-driven fire until winds die down or rain falls. And paying for fleets of tankers, helicopters, bulldozers and crews to sit around waiting for the weather to change is breathtakingly expensive. The odds: Pretty good. Maybe 7 out of 10. Already, California boasts one of the largest firefighting air forces in the world, featuring fire detection cameras, year-round fire engines, bulldozers, S-2T air tankers and Black Hawks for lifting fire crews in and out of steep terrain. Cal Fire is also retrofitting seven C-130 Hercules cargo planes to dump as much as 4,000 gallons of fame retardant. As noted, fire folks like a well-stocked toolbox and usually, Cal Fire gets what Cal Fire wants.

Why don’t we deal with this crisis at its source? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link To some extent, the ferocity of modern wildfires is exacerbated by climate change. Image via iStock The idea: These are not your father’s wildfires. California was built to burn, but that natural propensity has been amplified by climate change. Greenhouse gases — the planet-warming emissions that come largely from the burning of fossil fuels — declined during the pandemic but already are climbing back up. Earth has warmed nearly 2°F since pre-industrial times, and 2016 to 2020 is set to be the warmest five-year period on record. According to a United Nations report, emissions must drop 7.6 percent each year over the next decade to meet the global goal (2.7°F above pre-industrial levels) and avoid the worst-possible warming scenarios, which includes intensifying wildfires. The pros: Newsom has used the fires as a platform for highlighting the nexus between a warming climate and the frequency and intensity of burning. “I have no patience for climate change deniers,” he said, noting an ongoing drought, this summer’s historic heat and millions of dead trees are “the reality on the ground.” The cons: Reducing greenhouse gas pollution is a far bigger job than California alone can afford to bankroll. And Americans, even those who don’t deny the threat, aren’t in political agreement about the change, sacrifice and massive expense required by the solutions. The odds: Responding to climate change is an expressed priority for Newsom, who proposed billions of dollars in “climate resiliency” projects to clear forests, fireproof homes and assist rural communities. Those good intentions ran into the coronavirus buzzsaw that destroyed the state’s budget surplus. So it’s 9 in 10 odds that the status quo will continue. And let’s be real: The ability of one state to solve global climate change is limited. Even California doesn’t have that much climate control. Or hubris.

Why don’t we bury all the powerlines? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link A fallen transformer and downed power lines in Santa Rosa, following the Tubbs Fire of 2017. Nhat V. Meyer/San Jose Mercury News via AP The idea: Some of the most catastrophic wildfires in recent years have been sparked by electrical equipment. PG&E, in particular, has been bankrupted by liability for apocalyptic fires caused by aging wires and towers. Its solution? Apocalyptic blackouts. So why not put the fire hazard underground? The pros: It would be safer. And it’s not unheard of. Since 2009, Australia has required undergrounding of new lines. The cons: It’s incredibly slow. PG&E alone has some 81,000 miles of overhead lines. Undergrounding makes damaged lines hard to access, and leaves them vulnerable to floods and earthquakes. They’re just one source of risk among many. And it’s reallllly expensive. PG&E puts the price at about $2.3 million a mile on average compared with $800,000 per mile for building new overhead lines. The odds: On a scale of 1-10? Maybe a 3, though the cost-benefit improves with every utility-sparked wildfire. But utility poles have a constituency, too, as California rolls out the 5-G digital infrastructure needed for high-speed internet and self-driving cars.



Why don’t we make utilities repay us for blackouts? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link Patrons dine at Daughter Thai Kitchen in the Montclair District of Oakland, Calif., on Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2019, during a short-lived PG&E blackout reprieve. Photo by Jane Tyska / Bay Area News Group The idea: It happened in 2019 and it could happen again. Sensing no political downside, Newsom demanded PG&E offer rebates — $100 to residential customers and $250 to small businesses — to compensate people for a widespread public safety power shutdown on Oct. 9, 2019. As a result, the company agreed to a one-time reimbursement. The pros: Other businesses offer your money back if customers don’t get service. Californians use less electricity than customers in other states, on average, but their rates are relatively high. And there’s no harm for politicians in demanding refunds from, say, a company like PG&E, which is both unpopular and bankrupt. The cons: PG&E’s late 2019 blackouts hit some 2 million households while the utility remained in bankruptcy and power shutoffs have since become commonplace during dry, windy conditions. In any case, any rebate would be a mere gesture compared to what Californians are about to pay for electricity. So far, the average PG&E customer stands to pay an extra $30 a month even before all the details of bankruptcy are worked out. The odds: Five in 10 of some policy going forward. Newsom scored one clawback, but customers are getting used to blackouts, which might mean less outrage.



Why don’t we make all utilities public? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link Public ownership of utilities could improve accountability, but also increase the public’s costs. Image via iStock The idea: California is home to a mix of public and investor-owned utilities, but the investor-owned ones (think PG&E) have a fiduciary duty to shareholders that complicates spending on public safety. So let the government run the grid. The pros: The public, not shareholders or investors, would set rates through a governing body or a board and there would be clear accountability to improve safety and maintain equipment. Public utilities operate their own generation facilities or purchase power through contracts. And they would have access to public financing. No more worrying about shareholder returns. The cons: Turning private corporations into government-run providers would be difficult, pricey — and a gamble. The public would have to pony up billions just to acquire all private providers, including the biggest three: Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison. Then the public is left holding the bag if there are problems, such as deadly wildfires. And publicly owned utilities aren’t necessarily without controversy. Consider the history of corruption at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which serves 3.9 million customers, and whose power lines appear to have helped spark the Getty Fire. The odds: One in 10. Newsom talked of a state takeover of PG&E but ultimately signed off on a reorganization plan.

Why don’t we force utilities to better target blackouts? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link Without electricity, the theater marquee in Orinda remains dark as vehicles make their way during a PG&E blackout, Thursday, Oct. 10, 2019. Photo by Jose Carlos Fajardo / Bay Area News Group The idea: Public safety power shut-offs, or de-energization, have been used in California since 2013, mainly by San Diego Gas and Electric during high fire danger to reduce the risk of electrical fires. The pros: SDG&E hardened its system after a 2007 wildfire destroyed more than 1,000 homes and killed two people. It now operates a “networked” grid of major transmission lines, smaller distribution lines and circuits that allows distribution from different paths. The company also has invested in “reclosers,” which are pole-mounted circuit breakers that allow authorities to more surgically pinpoint trouble on a line and shut off power to smaller areas. The utility’s blackouts have affected as many as 23,000 households, and as few as one or two customers. The cons: PG&E can’t be so precise. It serves 70,000 square miles of California, and runs a “radial” system, meaning power lines stretch over long distances. PG&E serves 16 million customers compared to 3.6 million for SDG&E over 4,100 square miles. The odds: Eight in 10, but it’ll be a work in progress. According to PG&E’s wildfire mitigation plan, it pledged to work on finding ways to reduce the impact of blackouts ahead of this year’s wildfire season. So far, the utility has cut power to millions of people in dozens of counties several times in October.



Why don’t we bring back landlines? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link Cell phones can go dead when communication is most needed, but modern landlines also rely more on technology. Image via iStock The idea: Cell phones aren’t reliable during emergencies and PG&E blackouts have already resulted in a loss of cell phone service, so let’s go analog. California should bring back landlines. The pros: Landlines are time-tested, typically underground and can be operated with minimal power. The cons: They aren’t what they used to be. Modern landlines frequently operate on Voice over Internet Protocol, which sends calls over the internet, not a traditional phone line. If the power’s out, then a house phone might not work. Nor are companies required to offer backup power for VOIP lines. This is already becoming an issue as blackouts affect the state. Another problem? Folks with landlines often use cordless phones, which require electricity. The odds: Two out of 10. In 2017, more than half of U.S. households relied on cell phones alone. As phone companies increasingly lean on the internet to provide service, landlines figure less and less into California’s emergency back-up plan.



Why don’t we adopt more of Australia’s firefighting policies? Share by Email





Copy Embed Link A fire rages in the state of Western Australia. Photo by Raymond Fruseth Gangstad via Flickr The idea: California and Australia have a similar climate, many of the same plants and trees, recent withering drought and ferocious wildfires. We train crews together and fight each other’s fires. And, as in California’s bitter experience, responsibility for many of Australia’s deadliest fires can be laid at the feet of power companies. Yet officials Down Under sometimes seem to have a better handle on wildfire issues, with policies based on the principle of shared responsibility. The Aussies have been burying new utility lines for more than 20 years, but they also teach residents to protect and defend their homes. The pros: Many Australian states have a “Prepare, stay and defend, or leave early” policy. Residents receive a lot of well-presented information in community forums and in radio and television reminders about how to fireproof their homes, minimize damage and save lives if they stay. That preparation can reduce panic and deaths. In addition, the country’s research institutions regularly spit out computer programs and other tools to assist fire commanders, and those are incorporated into policy. A report following a series of Australian fires in 2009 that killed 173 people led to a new category of threat and changes in evacuation protocols. The cons: Although California authorities are ramping up efforts to educate homeowners about mitigating fire danger on their own properties, public outrage flares if residents believe that a taxpayer-funded agency failed to come to their rescue. In addition, although California is brimming with world-class research institutions and fire scientists regularly suggest actions to keep people and property safe, policy decisions rest with the Legislature and governor in a highly politicized environment. Australia’s state and federal Parliaments are also subject to political winds, but California’s fire-related lawmaking is famously thorny and fraught with disagreement among parties with deep economic interests at stake. The odds: A toss-up. Maybe 5 out of 10. California authorities have been loath to adopt a tough-love stance against homeowners who don’t leave as a raging fire approaches; litigiousness and tangled notions of liability and responsibility can complicate the issue.

For an even deeper look at the intersection of climate change, utilities and California fire season, explore CalMatters’ updated wildfire explainer here. Loading…