KQED61%

Feds Investigate Whether PG&E Contract Work Sparked Twain Fire in Plumas County 43%

By Ella Jackson68%

7/20/2026, 8:36:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 25.1% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 573 faulty-reasoning hits from 291 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.6% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,174 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.50% of the article peer group.

The U.S. 
Forest Service is investigating PG&E’s potential involvement in the Twain Fire, which burned about 276 acres of Plumas National Forest in Northern California last week. 
On July 13, PG&E filed an incident report with the California Public Utilities Commission, stating that a contractor was performing work on a steel pole for a transmission line near Feather River U.S. 
Highway 70 and Twain Store Road around noon. 
“A short time later, the Twain Fire was reported in the same area,” the filing said. 
PG&E said it was aware of the Forest Service’s investigation and is conducting its own investigation. 
The fire was first reported on July 11, and, as of July 19, the fire is 95% contained. 
The Kingsbury Grade Forest Road will remain closed until July 31 according to a Forest Service update, but the Pacific Crest Trail remains open. 
Over the past decade, PG&E has been fined billions of dollars for numerous fires sparked by its electrical equipment and filed for bankruptcy over wildfire liabilities in 2019. 
According to the CPUC, electric utility infrastructure has been responsible for less than 10% of reported wildfires  though these fires make up about half of the “most destructive fires in California history.” 
PG&E potentially faces a $22 million fine for the 2022 Mosquito Fire. 
The CPUC will vote on that settlement on Aug. 
13. 
PG&E confirmed the details of the incident report and reiterated that there are no reports of injuries or of damaged structures. 
They did not provide any information about the contractor or the nature of the work. 
The Forest Service did not provide a timeline for their investigation. 
KQED’s Danielle Venton contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.6%Ella Jackson: 2.9%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Ella Jackson: 5.5%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic15.1%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.6%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Ella Jackson: 7.3%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect15.5%This article: 4.1%Ella Jackson: 1.4%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 3.4%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 2.6%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.1%Ella Jackson: 8.9%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias25.1%This article: 12.7%Ella Jackson: 2.1%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias12.7%This article: 3.8%Ella Jackson: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 2.5%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Ella Jackson: 1.7%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.2%Ella Jackson: 1.1%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 4.8%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 1.6%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.7%Ella Jackson: 3.8%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization13.7%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 1.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.6%Ella Jackson: 9.3%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion9.6%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.5%Ella Jackson: 4.3%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 4.1%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Ella Jackson: 1.2%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.0%Ella Jackson: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote21.0%This article: 5.5%Ella Jackson: 0.9%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.5%This article: 17.9%Ella Jackson: 2.4%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice17.9%This article: 0.7%Ella Jackson: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination0.7%This article: 5.5%Ella Jackson: 2.7%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.5%This article: 5.5%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Ella Jackson: 0.1%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

291 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers62%attributed speech112writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageForest Service • 25 words • 100.0% coveragePG&E • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coveragePG&E • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageForest Service • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Public Utilities Commission • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCalifornia Public Utilities Commission • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coveragePG&E • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageForest Service • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDanielle Venton • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
79%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words23% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-25.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%California Public Utilities Commission: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.1 ptsWriter: 24.1%California Public Utilities Commission: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%California Public Utilities Commission: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%California Public Utilities Commission: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.