Conspiracy theory (which is shared by everyone I've talked to): PG&E turned off the power to make a political statement that they shouldn't be liable for wildfires.
Edit: by "not be liable", I mean passing legislation to achieve this.
Decades of pretending that liability didn't exist just caught up with them.
They wound-up liable because they gutted their tree-trimming operations and paid the difference in dividends. That is something that definitely makes you liable regardless of whether the original thing is an acceptable risk.
Now, it's hard to if this is indeed a "bail us out or we'll shut down at every strong breeze" statement or whether they are legitimately worried the lines they neglected actually now ignite at every strong breeze.
Either way, I think the average Californian justifiably hates this company. But it seems unlikely things will change.
California is a strict liability state when it comes to utility line fires: even if the utility isn't negligent, the utility must pay damages.
> They wound-up liable because they gutted their tree-trimming operations and paid the difference in dividends.
This is open to debate; it might be good evidence of negligence. But evidence of negligence doesn't matter.
Edit: Note, the Camp Fire has bankrupted them. They are bankrupt, in bankruptcy proceedings. They are also on criminal (not civil) probation. None of this stopped their stock from rising after the recent events - where a more naive me might expect their stock holders' money would be forfeit once they reached the level of bankruptcy (unsecured debtors and all).