I will disagree. When the likes of the Centers for Biological Diversity, Environmental Justice League, or Sierra Club can stop a 7,000 acre salvage logging project inside the 2018 Mendo Complex and the stacked log decks are just allowed to rot and become fuel for the next City of Paradise. Where is the accountability? The insurance companies have done the cost benefit analysis and so has PGE for that matter. Otherwise, they wouldn’t still be growing their fleet of Type 6’s. Several have mentioned it and I Will again. This is a manufactured crisis brought on my decades of mismanagement, misguided Environmental justice that has now combined with a severe staffing shortage being felt by ALL AGENCIES. A rising tide floats all boats. But in this case, the cannibalism occurring between agencies and policy decisions is intersecting with mother nature. Mother nature gets a vote, she votes last in most cases. While all this bickering and finger pointing is occurring, she continues to grow and increase the fuel loading.
Fire inspections should be done by insurance companies and assistance needs to available to those that need help with with clearance work. If a home owner refuses to get into compliance they should loose their policy. So many people have the I want to live amongst the trees viewpoint. You can’t expect an insurance company to provide you coverage in a high fire risk area when your property looks like this.
Insurance companies are pretty much the only entity in the equation that isn’t solely driven by politics. Their business needs to pencil out, period. As such, they are in a uniquely powerful position to affect public policy in a way the politicians can’t. In this case, I absolutely disagree it is wrong for private companies (aka the market) to steer public policies on things like land use and land management.
One reason we are in the pickle we are in with wildfire is that the political pressure to build and rebuild in dangerous places is immense. It is political suicide to tell people they can’t subdivide their 20 acre parcel of foothill brush, or that a developer needs to give up 20% of the lots in their development to allow for firesafe driveways or sensible setbacks from the wildland. After the Camp Fire, our local assemblyman thought the best way forward to recovery was to suspend environmental review (including things like firesafe planning, transportation planning, or vegetation management) for all new development in the area. The Town of Paradise is actively fighting the State Board of Forestry on their new firesafe development regulations, and their Town Council voted down pretty much all of the recommendations put forward on new firesafe building and landscape standards. After the Tubbs Fire, rebuilding projects were exempted from new WUI development standards. The list goes on.
I’m not counting on our politicians to solve our WUI problem, but the insurance companies aren’t going to keep taking major losses forever - they are our best leverage in pushing high-hazard communities to get their act together.
@ Everyone including mods… Please be factual and not belief or feeling felt.
Trust…I just lost my insurance on my residence this week…
But some of you are posting based on feels. Let’s pause think and react…the thread has left it’s original threads a bit.
Um…ask the people of Texas how having the simple ability to “choose” their power providers worked out for them.
Now I didn’t mean to poke the hornets nest when I brought this thread back to life. I was more curious about how they deal (rules of engagement) with homeowners that are onsite. If the homeowner says “take off” or “You’re liable for all damage” do they just move on to their next subscriber? Do they proactively ID themselves as being from “your” insurance company “State Farm” and we’re here to cut down all your shrubbery.
Being a SF customer, and on a well prepared parcel what happens when they say they know more than I and want to take action (in my case a low probability compared to others in the neighbor hood). What risk do I have by saying no.
And yes, I’ve reached out to my agent but I don’t expect much of an informed response.
Not to beat the horse too much, but why do I have to pay for the shlubs that don’t spend money/time to prepare their property. Cut me some discount money SF! 
The people who got burned on pricing were the cheapskates buying at “spot” pricing plus margin. Not everyone was buying power at those rates.
If you are referring to the cold weather shutdown, in PGE territory we are getting it a lot worse than them several times every year.
You don’t have to buy from SF. (Or maybe you do if they are the only ones who will write it.) Lloyds is always there, I have been told. But maybe SF will look like a discount after seeing what Lloyds wants.
As itsmyjob1 put it above, “Until it’s your house”. I too received the post card from State Farm. I’m all for it. WDS wouldn’t find much in the way of pine needles because I keep the yard, roof, rain gutters clean and have maintained lawn front and back. I live on a .33 acre lot in a pine dominated forest type. Some homeowners do absolutely nothing, so fire could run through my neighborhood. The idea that they may come in and apply gel or otherwise enhance the survivability of the structure is good. I always worry about being away on an assignment and hearing that fire is threatening my community. Self demob would be highly asap likely. My place would have a much better chance if I were home.
As an active DIVS I understand the reasons why IMTs think of the WDS types as somewhat of a nuisance to track, safety, communication, etc. The companies do have standards, State Farm understands risk (it’s what they do) and has determined to use the services. This has been building for 10+ years and likely isn’t going away. And…yeah, I used to be one of the naysayers.
I have a solution. how about all these insurance companies pony up fund to staff state fire crew back to their former glory of 400+ hand crews. That would be the simplest solution, that way Chain of command isn’t broken and you don’t have rouge actions or lack of accountability of personnel on the incident. As the fed government for Federal grant funding to support this too.
What is the financial interest for the insurance companies to do that?
The state(Sacramento) has demonstrated time and again that when a “Pet project funding source” is identified. Said funding source is used to REPLACE/OFFSET dollar for dollar not increase funding. I don’t know how many here are old enough to remember this, but when the state voted for the lottery, it was to INCREASE funding for schools. It has since be used as a FUNDING SOURCE as baseline monies were reallocate to OTHER PET PROJECTS.
Look at what happened in 2020 with Covid-19 funding. All kinds of “stimulus” were doled out. PPP(federal) increased UI benefits(State & Federal) increased medical/medi-cal benifits(state) free/reduced cost health care for non-citizens😳(Yes I just said that) all the while all state employees took a pay cut. Calfire employees took 10% and lost the final year raise(2.5%) of their 4yr contract because of Covid. My point is this, why would you give an organization more $$ when they have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. They can’t manage what they already had. Put another way, it’s like giving a heroin addicted person more heroin on the promise they will “get better”.
Give the pvt insurance companies a chance.
You are not actually serious are you? Of course they are driven by politics… the politics of making money for their shareholders. Do not forget it was AIG that became “too big to fail”… they are more than just “insurance companies”.
There is not political pressure to build homes where we do, it simply boils down to choices… pick your poison… at some point there will be a major earthquake and people will ask if we should rebuild near faults, there is probably a chat room right now on the Gulf Coast pondering the idea of rebuilding after hurricanes…
Don’t forget there are over 40 million people in this state… where do you plan on putting them?
I will submit again- private for profit entities have a place, but it is not at the public policy table. Who speaks up against larger corporate interests for the little old lady who lives in a trailer park? It most likely is not a for profit entity, it is the men and women of the California professional fire service…
Some background as far as pge resources are concerned. The primary mission is to treat poles so they do not burn and block emergency responders or civilians. Many of the recent fires have had poles and wires down and blocking resources out and civilians in. They have been tasked with doing this and if an agency doesn’t want them somewhere, then they don’t go. They will check in with the IC and can also relay needs to get linemen-troublemen to certain places and speed up the deenergizing part.
For the most part communication and accountability has been working.
Private companies aren’t the market, consumers are. I agree that insurance companies could be the major driving force when it comes to better tactical decisions concerning home building and land maintenenace, but to suggest they steer public policy…that’s the dark road of corporatocracy there my friend.
I agree with recent PGE resources integrated near seamlessly into many incidents in my area just last year alone. Head turned quite often when I heard “PGE ###” on a NIFC command checking with DIVS to go in and pretreat poles or if it was “cool” enough after flame front to start assessing emergency road clearing of lines and poles.
And then a lot of the grid reconstruction efforts and job sites had a Type6 sitting there amongst all the heavy equipment, standing by for any potential new ignition from their own work.
When I learned PGE flew planes 6 hours a day 7 days a week during fire season patrolling for new starts my rate-paying jaw dropped. But then when I learned how much it cost PGE to replace 30 very rural poles that burnt down in a fire, catching just one ignition early before it hit those 30 poles could nearly pay for the entire flight season. Some of the money, interests, and road blocks (govt, private, environmental, community/nimby) involved are mindboggling.
If the insurance companies are shut out as you want the fire service will quickly find out how powerfull the insurance lobby is! Invite them to the table now so you can come up with a workable arrangement now as opposed to a legislative fixed sponsored by the insurance industry handed to you without input. I have been around long enough to remember when the Forest Fire Agencies didn’t want the “Locals” around either sighting many of the same reasons. Training, certification of engine officers and leaders, command and control, scope of operations and communications all need to be locked down tight. Obviously there are times privates or anyone for that matter don’t belong in some areas of a fire at certain times but a blanket exclusion is even more ridiculous.
Disagree with you here.
When an agency accepts responsibility and accountability of a resource, then they accept what they do and what happens to them. When you add them to an organized supervisory structure, give them assignments, and accept their safety accountability, you effectively have hired them and at some point we will start paying them. This is completely counter productive to their mission. Let them prep the home of their subscribers, and mop up around the home when safe but at their own risk. They have no legal requirements for training and gear ( although most try). This then opens up a huge can of worms.
However to let all of them run freely on fires and come and go as they please, especially with numbers increasing will create chaos. Glad to be retired!