So excited to see a bill that is near and dear to my heart in print! SB 440 (@SenBillDodd) would create a sustained funding source for wildfire hardening ($1 billion over 10 years) and earthquake retrofit ($500 million over 10 years). #resilience #wildfire
The California Senate and Assembly have tried for several years to fund wildfire hardening but have come up short. @GavinNewsom proposed a small pilot last January that was zeroed out due to COVID and has proposed it again this year. This bill takes a much bigger and bolder step.
The bill would accomplish this by creating post-event assessment for major quakes in California for which @CalQuake pays ~$150m per year for. Basically a new insurance policy for CA where the premium is paid to help reduce catastrophic risk in our state.
The assessment would only be triggered if something worse than a 1906 quake and fire occurred and would max out (if something like 2x Northridge losses occurred) at about $46 per household in California.
In the meantime, CA could meaningfully invest in making communities safer from the catastrophic risks we face. Wildfire and quake. The status quo approach is shipping money offshore to the global reinsurance industry (@CalQuake is the largest purchaser of reinsurance on earth).
So the trade is basically, instead of paying reinsurance capacity (whoever that is) $200M/y, we pay construction workers and arborists in CA $150M/y and take the chance that a 1 in 200 to 1 in 400 year quake will occur, after which we would have to pay up to $46/y for a decade.
Trading insurance for risk reduction is a deal I have long thought we need to do more of in CA. SB 440 is one approach to doing that. It’s a good deal for CA but faces a long uphill battle. Thanks @SenBillDodd for being an enduring champion of wildfire safety and resilience!
I should have added that these tweets are my own personal views and not those of the CA Cat Council, the Wildfire Fund, @CalQuake, or the wonderful Senator @toniatkins who appointed me to serve in the Wildfire Fund oversight role.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Wara

Michael Wara Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MichaelWWara

17 Feb
My take on the mid-continent electricity grid situation stemming from the Arctic winter temps. 3 key messages:

Millions remain without power in frigid temperatures after major winter storm - YouTube
1. These outages are caused by two factors: extraordinarily high demand for power and the failure of traditional, mostly fossil fueled, power plants to perform under cold conditions.
2. Clean energy (ie frozen wind turbines) has little to do with what is going on. At most, wind curtailment has played a very modest secondary role in the outages to natural gas power plant failures. Those blaming wind for outages are confirming priors without looking at data.
Read 6 tweets
14 Jan
Ever since @JesseJenkins and colleagues work on a zero carbon US and this work by @DrChrisClack and colleagues on incorporating DER, I've been having the following set of thoughts about how to reduce the risk of failure in a US clean energy buildout. Bottom line is much more DER.
Typically, when we see zero-carbon electricity coupled to electrification of transport and buildings, implicitly standing behind that is totally unprecedented buildout of the transmission system. The team from Princeton's modeling work has this in spades for example.
But that, more even than the new generation required, runs straight into a thicket/woodchipper of environmental laws and public objections that currently (and for the last 50y) limit new transmission in the US. We built most transmission prior to the advent of environmental law.
Read 9 tweets
12 Jan
To me, the key message of our work is that wildfire is rapidly undermining the massive air quality progress that has been made over the past 50 years. We show the progress being reversed (and this study doesn’t include 2020 data).
And because wildfire smoke particles don’t count towards (or rather against) attainment due to the Clean Air Act’s “exceptional events” policy, we aren’t doing enough to develop effective responses to this growing public health crisis.
Wildfire (and wildfire smoke) is not exceptional. It is the predictable result of a century of forest management decisions. We can make different decisions and have different outcomes. If we want to. #goodfire is the key to reducing impacts of catastrophic wildfire.
Read 5 tweets
13 Nov 20
I really enjoyed this OpEd from two great people. Since neither of them is a lawyer, I want to add just one little piece to this discussion: NSPS.
Recall that the big deal climate reg in the power sector under Obama was the Clean Power Plan. This regulation of EXISTING power plants would have forced a coal to gas and renewable transition in the US over the next decade. It was legally risky then. Quite a bit riskier now.
Less noticed or remarked upon was the regulation of NEW coal fired power plants (called NSPS or 111(b) rule) that would have required carbon capture at all new coal plants. This rule was also challenged and also withdrawn and replaced by milquetoast under Trump.
Read 11 tweets
11 Nov 20
I think this is a major problem for anyone with assets that might want to engage in prescribed fire - even though the actual risks are very low. The basic problem is that commercial insurers do not want to write anything having to do with wildfire and do not differentiate.
This is not a public perception issue. It is a perception issue on the part of risk transfer capacity that has been totally burned by the loss experience in California over the past several years. Addressing this problem may require coordinated effort at the state level.
A state effort could offer coverage to burn bosses certified under the new CA program, maybe provide liability relief for those practitioners. Not to lower their risk but to lower risk perceptions for insurers and differentiate between good fire and utilities, home insurers, etc.
Read 4 tweets
4 Nov 20
It seems increasingly likely that Biden will win the presidential election but that democrats will not secure a majority in the senate. That means action on climate and energy will almost certainly have to proceed via regulation using existing authority. A thread...
President Biden won't be able to rely on CRA to quickly revoke problematic rules but will be able to rescind or revise them. He will face a much less friendly Supreme Court when his rules are challenged. What does this all mean, practically speaking?
For oil and gas methane, §111b and d rules that dramatically reduce emissions - especially important now that so many wells have been idled by falling oil prices.
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!