Sounds like a good reason to indemnify utility providers from fires their systems cause for reasons other than outright negligence...
Otherwise, facing potentially billions in liabilities, it just doesn't make economic sense _for the utility_ to provide power to high risk areas during high risk weather.
They didn't happen before because trees were kept cut back. They were not cut back because PGE management chose not to spend the money cutting them back as they had been for decades before.
There was no "high-risk" weather throughout almost all of the area where power was cut. This cut was purely a stunt to get free insurance against deliberate negligent behavior.
Consider the Tubb's fire that PG&E is being sued over and which triggered their filing for bankrupcy protection: Cal Fire's investigation concluded that the fire was caused by a private electrical system and not PG&E.
Otherwise, facing potentially billions in liabilities, it just doesn't make economic sense _for the utility_ to provide power to high risk areas during high risk weather.