On March 1, 2025—only after the catastrophic Palisades and Eaton wildfires in January—Gov. Gavin Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency due to the “catastrophic wildfire risks created by forest conditions across the state.”
But nine of the 20 largest California wildfires over the past 125 years have ignited since Newsom took office, including eight of the most destructive, raising questions about the effectiveness of his wildfire leadership over the past six years.
Instead, Newsom’s new proclamation reads like an apologia for his failed wildfire prevention policies: It recites that in March 2019 Newsom had already proclaimed a state of emergency to exist “due to catastrophic wildfire risks created by forest conditions” and that 106 projects had been “approved” for a vegetation treatment program.
But without sufficient funding and additional critical measures, these proclamations are worthless words. In fact, California has committed on average only $400 million annually for wildfire resilience compared to a recommendation prepared by former Gov. Jerry Brown and a panel of experts in 2021 that the state spend $5 billion annually to address the dangers of wildfires.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state has committed only $3.6 billion for wildfire and forest resilience over nine years (or $400 million annually) from 2020-21 through 2028-29 compared to $9.164 billion for zero-emission vehicles over five budget years.
Here is what the governor should be doing:
First, when he issues his May Revise, which updates his upcoming budget for 2025-26, he should shift all of the funding for zero-emission vehicles for the next three years to wildfire and forest resilience because the increased greenhouse gases spewed by wildfires far outweigh any reduction in greenhouses gases from zero-emission vehicles. After all, the 2020 wildfires alone spewed twice the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that California had reduced over 16 years, according to a UCLA-University of Chicago study.
Second, the governor should prioritize wildfire-resilience efforts in those areas within the “wildland-urban interface” with the largest number of people and homes to protect. That “interface” is where human development meets underdeveloped wildland and is home to one in three Californians.
The Palisades and Eaton wildfires arose within the wildland-urban interface, as did the 2018 Camp fire that destroyed the town of Paradise. Such a prioritization not only protects the largest number of lives and homes, but recognizes that the horrendous damage caused by wildfires triggers increased homeowner insurance premiums for all Californians and motivates insurers to flee the state.
Third, the governor should relax the expensive renewable energy requirements imposed on utilities so that funds can be shifted to the more urgent need of hardening or burying utility transmission lines that can trigger wildfires. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, “utility power lines caused at least eight of the 20 most destructive fires in California’s history.” This includes the 2018 Camp Fire, triggered by PG&E equipment, and the 2018 Woolsey Fire, triggered by Southern California Edison’s power lines. The 2025 Eaton wildfire itself may have been sparked by transmission equipment.
But according to Southern California Edison, the cost to place lines underground is between $3 million and $5 million per mile. Alternatively, it costs roughly $900,000 per mile to insulate the lines with fire-resistant material.
Nonetheless, in 2022—four years after the Woolsey and Camp wildfires—Newsom signed Senate Bill 1020, which increases utilities’ expenses by accelerating the 2045 deadline for 100% clean electricity. It requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90% of all retail sales of electricity in just 10 years—by 2035. This act of virtue-signaling leaves less funding to harden transmission lines while increasing electrical rates, even though the average California rates are already close to double the national average.
Fourth, the state should provide tax credits (not merely tax deductions) to encourage homeowners who live in the wildland-urban interface to upgrade their homes with fire resistant materials, which help reduce the spread of wildfires.
Fifth, the state should speed the thinning of forests in the wildland-urban interface by streamlining the regulations governing timber harvesting. Dense forests with small trees and dead timber serve as “ladder fuels” that carry flames to the trees’ canopies, which spread in the wind. Cal Fire itself acknowledges that sustainable commercial timber harvesting can achieve forest health.
But the state’s heavy restrictions against timber harvesting have simultaneously reduced the number of mills necessary for processing timber from 140 mills in the 1980s to less than 30. Tax incentives will be necessary to encourage the construction of the mills necessary to process the timber harvested to promote forest health.
Given that 18 of the 20 largest wildfires in California since 1900 have occurred since 2003, it is time for the governor and Legislature to stop virtue-signaling in an ineffective effort to stop climate change, and to instead amend our laws and reallocate our resources to protect lives and homes. Governing by virtue-signaling is easy. But it is not governing.
Daniel M. Kolkey, an attorney and former California appellate judge, served as counsel to Gov. Pete Wilson and serves on the board of Pacific Research institute.
