UC Berkeley

California’s unprecedented firestorms of 2017 sparked a series of structural and regulatory changes that opened doors for state and corporate actors to technocratically intervene in the daily lives of marginalized individuals and communities. This dissertation analyzes how ‘social vulnerability’––an ambiguous, contested, and malleable concept that indexes different aspects of personal and public life––becomes a mode of governance during disasters. I explore how social vulnerability is shaped through the interface between bureaucratic initiatives on the one hand, and the activism, advocacy, and lived experiences of ‘vulnerable subjects’ on the other.The manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of how Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the largest state-regulated, investor-owned public utility in the United States, oddly became responsible for designing and delivering a series of sociomedical programs for people with access and functional needs who are severely neglected by state-led wildfire preparedness and response protocols. I begin with the aftermath of PG&E’s abrupt 2019 power shutoffs aimed at preventing the possibility of catastrophic fires during high-wind days. Ironically, abrupt cuts to electricity in the name of public safety left individuals who rely on durable medical equipment and assistive technologies with uncharged essential devices (e.g., oxygen concentrators, refrigerators storing insulin, power chairs, and so forth). My research illuminates the decentralized ‘riskscape’ that positioned PG&E to coordinate the response to wildfires and become a leading player not only in provisioning energy, but in perpetuating forms of medical dependency: people who had been dependent on electric service were now dependent on the distribution of portable backup batteries, a key feature of the company’s sociomedical programs. The case study reveals (1) the types of subjectivities that emerged as an array of actors with diverse social positions, claims to expertise, and interpretations of vulnerability attempted to implement the utility’s fledgling programs amid intolerable circumstances; (2) how different stakeholders––from activists, community and advocacy groups, governmental institutions, to PG&E itself––were either permitted or restricted from officially engaging in the discourses surrounding each program, thereby reifying or disrupting dominant perceptions of vulnerability; and (3) the rhetorical strategies PG&E mobilized through speech, text, and visual artifacts to forefront, codify, and circulate notions of social vulnerability that enhanced the company’s public image while diverting attention away from its malfeasance. Ultimately, I employ political, linguistic, and visual modes of analysis to identify what is at stake for individuals with access and functional needs who are differentially valued according to mental and bodily capabilities and capacities as the techniques, strategies, and rationalities of wildfire governance unfold. This research provides implementable findings for planners and policy-makers as the scale, frequency, and volatility of wildfires increase and additional vulnerable populations attempt to navigate the maze of official guidance, ad hoc governance, and self-directed resilience measures.