"PG&E, a Californian utility, was forced into bankruptcy protection in January after insurers and creditors fled when they concluded that it could be on the hook for billion-dollar liabilities over its possible role in sparking wildfires." Can anyone explain the logic of the sentence?

closed as off-topic by Jim, TimLymington, Jason Bassford, sumelic, jimm101 Feb 25 at 21:40

  • This question does not appear to be about English language and usage within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is about the California wildfires, not English. – Jim Feb 25 at 4:37
  • No, it is about meaning of an English sentense. – Lexinton Ave Feb 25 at 4:40
  • 1
    If you understood all the background on the recent California wildfires, I think the meaning would be clear. There’s no special grammar in it. So, in my mind it’s all about knowing the history and not about knowing English. For example if I translated the sentence to French (and you knew French) you’d probably still have the same question. – Jim Feb 25 at 5:05
  • Actually I dont know the background, so pointing out that makes sense in understanding the thing. – Lexinton Ave Feb 25 at 5:11
  • It can be closed now, since Jeremy has given a good answer. – Lexinton Ave Feb 25 at 5:33

The sentence does not imply that PG&E sparked or started the wildfires. However, they may have had a role in sparking wildfires. In this particular case, the role that they played is explained in this CNN article:

The company, of course, is not suspected of intentionally causing any fires. Rather, it's under scrutiny for how it maintains its sprawling infrastructure that delivers electricity to some 16 million Californians -- much of it via above-ground power lines running through heavily forested public land.

Last year alone, PG&E equipment caused 17 fires, often after falling branches or trees came into contact with power lines, according to state fire officials. In 11 of those cases, state fire investigators found the company violated codes regarding brush clearance or related violations and referred the matters to local prosecutors for their review.

  • 2
    Yes, it does imply that PG&E literally sparked the wildfires, as they were (presumably) started by sparks from faulty electrical equipment owned by PG&E. – jamesqf Feb 25 at 5:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.