Latest news with #LorettaLynch
Miami Herald
12-04-2025
- General
- Miami Herald
Secret changes Edison imposed after Eaton fire remain shrouded in mystery
LOS ANGELES - Just weeks after the deadly Eaton fire ignited near three Southern California Edison transmission towers, the utility quietly changed an internal policy on how crews should ground idle electrical pylons. The change attracted little attention at the time - due mostly to the fact that early suspicion about the cause of the blaze focused on two active transmission towers in Eaton Canyon. But in recent weeks, speculation about the origin of the fire has shifted to a third idle transmission tower that had been unused for more than five decades. Despite these revelations, Southern California Edison - and the state commission tasked with regulating utilities - have refused to disclose what changes Edison made to how it grounds idle transmission towers, or what prompted the company to make the change days after its crews were allowed to inspect the hillside where the blaze erupted. The California Public Utilities Commission has ignored questions and denied a public records request from the Los Angeles Times regarding Edison's actions. The request could help shine a light on what officials have learned during their inspections, and what might have caused the inferno that killed 18 people. The agency cited no exemption in denying the request, which is required under the California Public Records Act. Instead, the commission said responsive documents were not available at this time and told The Times to resubmit its request in nine months. A spokesperson for the agency did not respond to questions as to why. However, the California Public Records Act does not allow agencies to delay disclosures for months. Instead, it requires them to respond within 10 days of getting a public records request. The act allows agencies to request extensions, but states they should be no longer than 14 days except for "unusual circumstances." Loretta Lynch, the former president of the CPUC from 2000 to 2002, said the documents should be released. "They should be completely available," she said in an interview. "They should be filing these reports, otherwise, why do we have the CPUC to begin with?" Lynch, who has openly criticized the commission for its close ties to utilities, said companies such as Edison often rely on the CPUC to keep documents from the public. Often, she said, companies will request that documents that would be of public interest be tagged as "business confidential" to keep them from being released. The CPUC denied The Times' records request on March 10. The Times asked the agency to reconsider its decision four days later, noting the agency cited no reason to withhold the documents. The request to the commission's legal division, as well as multiple calls and messages to its media relations department seeking clarity as to why the records were being denied - or why no reason was cited as required by the state's public records law - went unanswered for weeks. The Times reached out to the CPUC for comment Friday for this article. The CPUC notified The Times on Monday the document request had been reopened for consideration. Edison has also declined to release the document publicly. The company also declined to answer questions as to what prompted the change, or what the change would entail when it came to idle towers such as the one now being scrutinized in the Eaton fire investigation. A spokesperson for Edison referred to it as an internal document. "After we reviewed the manual, we realized the language was not as clear as it could be for grounding idle lattice steel structures and, in the spirit of making continuous improvement, we made changes to make it more clear," said the spokesperson, David Eisenhauer. Transmission towers must be grounded - or carefully connected to the earth - to safely dissipate energy from lightning strikes and voltage surges. As a private company, Edison is not required to make the document public. However, attorneys who have sued the company for its possible role in the Eaton fire criticized the decision, arguing that it went against the company's promise of transparency. The document could shed light into the company's response to the disaster, they say. "Here, they've hinted that the company made some change to grounding practices that could be at the core of this case, but refuse to tell anybody what they did," wrote Eli Wade-Scott, a partner at Edelson PC, in an email. "If SCE failed to properly ground these idle lines that have been sitting there for fifty years, that was a disaster waiting to happen - and they will have to answer for that to a jury." Edison is now facing numerous lawsuits over the fire, and the possible role of its electrical equipment. Investigators with the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have yet to determine an official cause of the fire, and Edison has since deployed crews and workers to inspect and test the equipment overlooking Eaton Canyon. But several law firms have hired their own team of fire investigators and electrical engineers to investigate the cause and look for clues. Their attention has, in recent weeks, focused on the idle tower, and a grounding wire that was exposed by about four feet in the steep hillside. "The tower was not grounded properly," said Alexander Robertson, an attorney from the firm Robertson and Associates LLP, which has filed suit against Edison. "That cable is supposed to be buried deep into the ground." Although the tower and line have not been in use since 1971, Edison officials and attorneys are looking at the possibility the idle tower and lines could have somehow been reenergized, sending electricity through the equipment and raising the possibility that the exposed grounding wire could have sparked the fire. In a Feb. 6 filing with the CPUC, Edison noted it was investigating the possibility its equipment could have caused the fire, including "the extent to which that line or its grounding could be related to the cause of the fire." In a footnote, the filing states that the company changed how it grounds idle lines, and its manual - specifically sections referring to the grounding of idle towers. "SCE has taken immediate steps to further strengthen and standardize its grounding practices with respect to idle lines, including updating SCE's Transmission Operations and Maintenance Policies and Procedures," reads the footnote. An Edison spokesperson declined to say what prompted the changes, or if they were connected to the company's inspections of its three towers after the fire. Eisenhauer declined to answer questions as to whether changes in the language of the manual resulted in changes to how crews were required to ground idle transmission towers from now on. Terrie Prosper, a spokesperson for the CPUC, confirmed to The Times that Edison updated its Transmission Operations and Maintenance Policies on Jan. 27, 20 days after the fire began and 11 days after Edison crews got access to inspect the area. The changes, Prosper said, were provided to the commission. The changes updated a four-month-old version of the manual outlining maintenance and procedures for the company. That previous version was dated Sept. 27, 2024, Prosper said in an email. No other changes made to Edison's manual were noted in the Feb. 6 CPUC filing, and Edison officials declined to say if it was the only change made to the manual. In a recent interview with The Times, Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said it was possible the company's equipment caused the fire. "It's certainly possible it did," he said. "I've pledged to be transparent with the public as we continue to investigate." Michael Aguirre, a former federal prosecutor who has sued the CPUC to release records, said it is a constant uphill battle to have the regulating agency release records. "There is a blanket of secrecy over the paperwork that flows to the CPUC, that never gets to the public domain," he said. Documents are often tagged as proprietary, he said, and the agency has worked exemptions into the state's public records law, similar to branches of government like the governor's office. An Edison spokesperson would not say if the document was labeled as holding proprietary information or as "business confidential," preventing its release. Dozens of lawsuits filed against Edison raise a number of theories as to how electrical equipment might have been involved in sparking the fire, including the possibility of arcing, and allegations Edison failed to maintain the vegetation in the area, raising the risk. It's unclear if, or how, the idle tower could have been energized, but Robertson, the attorney, said investigators are looking at the possibility of induction - where a line is powered by a running parallel line. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Secret changes Edison imposed after Eaton fire remain shrouded in mystery
Just weeks after the deadly Eaton fire ignited near three Southern California Edison transmission towers, the utility quietly changed an internal policy on how crews should ground idle electrical pylons. The change attracted little attention at the time — due mostly to the fact that early suspicion about the cause of the blaze focused on two active transmission towers in Eaton Canyon. But in recent weeks, speculation about the origin of the fire has shifted to a third idle transmission tower that had been unused for more than five decades. Despite these revelations, Southern California Edison — and the state commission tasked with regulating utilities — have refused to disclose what changes Edison made to how it grounds idle transmission towers, or what prompted the company to make the change days after its crews were allowed to inspect the hillside where the blaze erupted. The California Public Utilities Commission has ignored questions and denied a public records request from the Los Angeles Times regarding Edison's actions. The request could help shine a light on what officials have learned during their inspections, and what might have caused the inferno that killed 18 people. Read more:As investigators close in on cause of Eaton fire, activity swirls around Edison lines The agency cited no exemption in denying the request, which is required under the California Public Records Act. Instead, the commission said responsive documents were not available at this time and told The Times to resubmit its request in nine months. A spokesperson for the agency did not respond to questions as to why. However, the California Public Records Act does not allow agencies to delay disclosures for months. Instead, it requires them to respond within 10 days of getting a public records request. The act allows agencies to request extensions, but states they should be no longer than 14 days except for "unusual circumstances." Loretta Lynch, the former president of the CPUC from 2000 to 2002, said the documents should be released. "They should be completely available," she said in an interview. "They should be filing these reports, otherwise, why do we have the CPUC to begin with?" Lynch, who has openly criticized the commission for its close ties to utilities, said companies such as Edison often rely on the CPUC to keep documents from the public. Often, she said, companies will request that documents that would be of public interest be tagged as "business confidential" to keep them from being released. The CPUC denied The Times' records request on March 10. The Times asked the agency to reconsider its decision four days later, noting the agency cited no reason to withhold the documents. The request to the commission's legal division, as well as multiple calls and messages to its media relations department seeking clarity as to why the records were being denied — or why no reason was cited as required by the state's public records law — went unanswered for weeks. The Times reached out to the CPUC for comment Friday for this article. The CPUC notified The Times on Monday the document request had been reopened for consideration. Edison has also declined to release the document publicly. The company also declined to answer questions as to what prompted the change, or what the change would entail when it came to idle towers such as the one now being scrutinized in the Eaton fire investigation. A spokesperson for Edison referred to it as an internal document. "After we reviewed the manual, we realized the language was not as clear as it could be for grounding idle lattice steel structures and, in the spirit of making continuous improvement, we made changes to make it more clear," said the spokesperson, David Eisenhauer. Transmission towers must be grounded — or carefully connected to the earth — to safely dissipate energy from lightning strikes and voltage surges. Read more:Palisades and Eaton firefighters had elevated blood levels of mercury and lead, according to an early study As a private company, Edison is not required to make the document public. However, attorneys who have sued the company for its possible role in the Eaton fire criticized the decision, arguing that it went against the company's promise of transparency. The document could shed light into the company's response to the disaster, they say. "Here, they've hinted that the company made some change to grounding practices that could be at the core of this case, but refuse to tell anybody what they did," wrote Eli Wade-Scott, a partner at Edelson PC, in an email. "If SCE failed to properly ground these idle lines that have been sitting there for fifty years, that was a disaster waiting to happen — and they will have to answer for that to a jury." Edison is now facing numerous lawsuits over the fire, and the possible role of its electrical equipment. Investigators with the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have yet to determine an official cause of the fire, and Edison has since deployed crews and workers to inspect and test the equipment overlooking Eaton Canyon. But several law firms have hired their own team of fire investigators and electrical engineers to investigate the cause and look for clues. Their attention has, in recent weeks, focused on the idle tower, and a grounding wire that was exposed by about four feet in the steep hillside. "The tower was not grounded properly," said Alexander Robertson, an attorney from the firm Robertson and Associates LLP, which has filed suit against Edison. "That cable is supposed to be buried deep into the ground." Although the tower and line have not been in use since 1971, Edison officials and attorneys are looking at the possibility the idle tower and lines could have somehow been reenergized, sending electricity through the equipment and raising the possibility that the exposed grounding wire could have sparked the fire. In a Feb. 6 filing with the CPUC, Edison noted it was investigating the possibility its equipment could have caused the fire, including "the extent to which that line or its grounding could be related to the cause of the fire." In a footnote, the filing states that the company changed how it grounds idle lines, and its manual — specifically sections referring to the grounding of idle towers. "SCE has taken immediate steps to further strengthen and standardize its grounding practices with respect to idle lines, including updating SCE's Transmission Operations and Maintenance Policies and Procedures," reads the footnote. An Edison spokesperson declined to say what prompted the changes, or if they were connected to the company's inspections of its three towers after the fire. Eisenhauer declined to answer questions as to whether changes in the language of the manual resulted in changes to how crews were required to ground idle transmission towers from now on. Terrie Prosper, a spokesperson for the CPUC, confirmed to The Times that Edison updated its Transmission Operations and Maintenance Policies on Jan. 27, 20 days after the fire began and 11 days after Edison crews got access to inspect the area. The changes, Prosper said, were provided to the commission. The changes updated a four-month-old version of the manual outlining maintenance and procedures for the company. That previous version was dated Sept. 27, 2024, Prosper said in an email. No other changes made to Edison's manual were noted in the Feb. 6 CPUC filing, and Edison officials declined to say if it was the only change made to the manual. In a recent interview with The Times, Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said it was possible the company's equipment caused the fire. "It's certainly possible it did," he said. "I've pledged to be transparent with the public as we continue to investigate." Michael Aguirre, a former federal prosecutor who has sued the CPUC to release records, said it is a constant uphill battle to have the regulating agency release records. "There is a blanket of secrecy over the paperwork that flows to the CPUC, that never gets to the public domain," he said. Documents are often tagged as proprietary, he said, and the agency has worked exemptions into the state's public records law, similar to branches of government like the governor's office. An Edison spokesperson would not say if the document was labeled as holding proprietary information or as "business confidential," preventing its release. Dozens of lawsuits filed against Edison raise a number of theories as to how electrical equipment might have been involved in sparking the fire, including the possibility of arcing, and allegations Edison failed to maintain the vegetation in the area, raising the risk. It's unclear if, or how, the idle tower could have been energized, but Robertson, the attorney, said investigators are looking at the possibility of induction — where a line is powered by a running parallel line. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
10-04-2025
- General
- Los Angeles Times
Secret changes Edison imposed after Eaton fire remain shrouded in mystery
Just weeks after the deadly Eaton fire ignited near three Southern California Edison transmission towers, the utility quietly changed an internal policy on how crews should ground idle electrical pylons. The change attracted little attention at the time — due mostly to the fact that early suspicion about the cause of the blaze focused on two active transmission towers in Eaton Canyon. But in recent weeks, speculation about the origin of the fire has shifted to a third idle transmission tower that had been unused for more than five decades. Despite these revelations, Southern California Edison — and the state commission tasked with regulating utilities — have refused to disclose what changes Edison made to how it grounds idle transmission towers, or what prompted the company to make the change days after its crews were allowed to inspect the hillside where the blaze erupted. The California Public Utilities Commission has ignored questions and denied a public records request from the Los Angeles Times regarding Edison's actions. The request could help shine a light on what officials have learned during their inspections, and what might have caused the inferno that killed 18 people. The agency cited no exemption in denying the request, which is required under the California Public Records Act. Instead, the commission said responsive documents were not available at this time and told The Times to resubmit its request in nine months. A spokesperson for the agency did not respond to questions as to why. However, the California Public Records Act does not allow agencies to delay disclosures for months. Instead, it requires them to respond within 10 days of getting a public records request. The act allows agencies to request extensions, but states they should be no longer than 14 days except for 'unusual circumstances.' Loretta Lynch, the former president of the CPUC from 2000 to 2002, said the documents should be released. 'They should be completely available,' she said in an interview. 'They should be filing these reports, otherwise, why do we have the CPUC to begin with?' Lynch, who has openly criticized the commission for its close ties to utilities, said companies such as Edison often rely on the CPUC to keep documents from the public. Often, she said, companies will request that documents that would be of public interest be tagged as 'business confidential' to keep them from being released. The CPUC denied The Times' records request on March 10. The Times asked the agency to reconsider its decision four days later, noting the agency cited no reason to withhold the documents. The request to the commission's legal division, as well as multiple calls and messages to its media relations department seeking clarity as to why the records were being denied — or why no reason was cited as required by the state's public records law — went unanswered for weeks. The Times reached out to the CPUC for comment Friday for this article. The CPUC notified The Times on Monday the document request had been reopened for consideration. Edison has also declined to release the document publicly. The company also declined to answer questions as to what prompted the change, or what the change would entail when it came to idle towers such as the one now being scrutinized in the Eaton fire investigation. A spokesperson for Edison referred to it as an internal document. 'After we reviewed the manual, we realized the language was not as clear as it could be for grounding idle lattice steel structures and, in the spirit of making continuous improvement, we made changes to make it more clear,' said the spokesperson, David Eisenhauer. Transmission towers must be grounded — or carefully connected to the earth — to safely dissipate energy from lightning strikes and voltage surges. As a private company, Edison is not required to make the document public. However, attorneys who have sued the company for its possible role in the Eaton fire criticized the decision, arguing that it went against the company's promise of transparency. The document could shed light into the company's response to the disaster, they say. 'Here, they've hinted that the company made some change to grounding practices that could be at the core of this case, but refuse to tell anybody what they did,' wrote Eli Wade-Scott, a partner at Edelson PC, in an email. 'If SCE failed to properly ground these idle lines that have been sitting there for fifty years, that was a disaster waiting to happen — and they will have to answer for that to a jury.' Edison is now facing numerous lawsuits over the fire, and the possible role of its electrical equipment. Investigators with the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have yet to determine an official cause of the fire, and Edison has since deployed crews and workers to inspect and test the equipment overlooking Eaton Canyon. But several law firms have hired their own team of fire investigators and electrical engineers to investigate the cause and look for clues. Their attention has, in recent weeks, focused on the idle tower, and a grounding wire that was exposed by about four feet in the steep hillside. 'The tower was not grounded properly,' said Alexander Robertson, an attorney from the firm Robertson and Associates LLP, which has filed suit against Edison. 'That cable is supposed to be buried deep into the ground.' Although the tower and line have not been in use since 1971, Edison officials and attorneys are looking at the possibility the idle tower and lines could have somehow been reenergized, sending electricity through the equipment and raising the possibility that the exposed grounding wire could have sparked the fire. In a Feb. 6 filing with the CPUC, Edison noted it was investigating the possibility its equipment could have caused the fire, including 'the extent to which that line or its grounding could be related to the cause of the fire.' In a footnote, the filing states that the company changed how it grounds idle lines, and its manual — specifically sections referring to the grounding of idle towers. 'SCE has taken immediate steps to further strengthen and standardize its grounding practices with respect to idle lines, including updating SCE's Transmission Operations and Maintenance Policies and Procedures,' reads the footnote. An Edison spokesperson declined to say what prompted the changes, or if they were connected to the company's inspections of its three towers after the fire. Eisenhauer declined to answer questions as to whether changes in the language of the manual resulted in changes to how crews were required to ground idle transmission towers from now on. Terrie Prosper, a spokesperson for the CPUC, confirmed to The Times that Edison updated its Transmission Operations and Maintenance Policies on Jan. 27, 20 days after the fire began and 11 days after Edison crews got access to inspect the area. The changes, Prosper said, were provided to the commission. The changes updated a four-month-old version of the manual outlining maintenance and procedures for the company. That previous version was dated Sept. 27, 2024, Prosper said in an email. No other changes made to Edison's manual were noted in the Feb. 6 CPUC filing, and Edison officials declined to say if it was the only change made to the manual. In a recent interview with The Times, Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said it was possible the company's equipment caused the fire. 'It's certainly possible it did,' he said. 'I've pledged to be transparent with the public as we continue to investigate.' Michael Aguirre, a former federal prosecutor who has sued the CPUC to release records, said it is a constant uphill battle to have the regulating agency release records. 'There is a blanket of secrecy over the paperwork that flows to the CPUC, that never gets to the public domain,' he said. Documents are often tagged as proprietary, he said, and the agency has worked exemptions into the state's public records law, similar to branches of government like the governor's office. An Edison spokesperson would not say if the document was labeled as holding proprietary information or as 'business confidential,' preventing its release. Dozens of lawsuits filed against Edison raise a number of theories as to how electrical equipment might have been involved in sparking the fire, including the possibility of arcing, and allegations Edison failed to maintain the vegetation in the area, raising the risk. It's unclear if, or how, the idle tower could have been energized, but Robertson, the attorney, said investigators are looking at the possibility of induction — where a line is powered by a running parallel line.
Los Angeles Times
30-03-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Edison customers are paying more for fire prevention. So why are there more fires?
Southern California Edison's electric equipment continues to spark scores of wildfires in its territory, even though the utility has spent billions of dollars on prevention measures that are costing the average customer more than $300 a year. Edison's spending on insulated wires, tree trimming, weather stations and increased equipment inspections now accounts for roughly 15% of the average utility bill, up from 9% two years ago, according to the state Public Utilities Commission's public advocates office. The company dedicated $1.9 billion for wildfire-related spending last year, up 29% from the year before, according to state officials. Every month, $26 of the average customer bill — now $175 — goes to cover those costs. Despite that spending, there were 178 wildfires sparked last year by equipment owned by Edison, which serves 15 million people in Southern and Central California, according to data the utility reports to the state. That's up from 107 in 2015. 'We are spending tens of billions of dollars to not be one whit more safe,' said Loretta Lynch, former president of the Public Utilities Commission. Lynch and others say much of the blame goes to a state law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019 known as AB 1054 that limited the financial liability of utilities for wildfires they caused. By allowing utilities to shift the cost of damages from wildfires to customers, even when the blazes were caused by company mistakes, the utilities have less of an incentive to mitigate wildfire risks, Lynch said. At the same time, state auditors have faulted utility regulators for not ensuring the companies' fast-rising spending to prevent wildfires was effective. Edison's actions to prevent wildfires have come under scrutiny in the wake of the devastating Eaton wildfire that killed 17 people and destroyed 10,000 homes and other structures. Scores of lawsuits have been filed against the Rosemead-based utility and its parent company, Edison International, saying its equipment sparked the conflagration. Videos captured the inferno igniting on Jan. 7 under one of the company's transmission towers in Eaton Canyon. Edison said it is investigating the cause of the Eaton fire, but said that the effort is in the early stages and could take 18 months to complete. 'We are focused on a thorough and transparent investigation,' a company spokesperson said. Edison executives say the costs of tree trimming and other work have made customers safer. They have repeatedly touted those efforts to the company's investors, saying the work has reduced the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by more than 85% since 2017. In a recent interview, Raymond Fugere, a top Edison wildfire safety executive, said the 85% figure is based on a number of factors, including analyses by the company and third parties of the effectiveness of its fire prevention work. Edison increased its fire-prevention spending in the wake of devastating California wildfires in 2017 and 2018. Since then, the company installed 6,400 miles of fire-resistant insulated power lines, removed trees, increased inspections in areas at high risk of wildfire and added AI-enabled cameras to spot wildfires. 'If it wasn't for a lot of these mitigations, there could have been more fires,' Fugere said. 'We keep working and are trying to harden that system to protect the customers.' Scientists say that climate change has exacerbated the risks from wildfires in California by creating hotter and drier fire seasons. Fugere said the number of ignitions caused by Edison's infrastructure, which are mostly small fires that don't spread, go up and down each year because they tend to vary with the weather. That was the case, he said, when ignitions jumped from 90 in 2023 to 178 in 2024. 'In 2024 we had a heavy rain in a very short period of time,' he said. 'And then it kind of dried out. And so you had all this growth of vegetation … Weather is really the big thing.' Even so, there are still dozens of wildfires every year that are sparked by equipment operated by Edison and the state's other two big investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric. The state's Wildfire Safety Advisory Board reviewed the annual fire ignition figures from the three big utilities on Dec. 4. Jessica Block, a UC San Diego scientist who chairs the board, said it 'didn't look like a whole lot of progress was being made' toward fire prevention. The 2019 law, AB 1054, slashed utilities' liability for fires caused by their equipment. It changed the law so that such companies are now automatically deemed to have acted 'prudently' as long as they've obtained an annual safety certification from state regulators prior to any fire. Practically, that means the utility companies must still pay for $1 billion in wildfire insurance coverage. But any damages to those affected by wildfires caused by their equipment that tops $1 billion will now be covered by a state fund that was $12 billion as of January and is eventually targeted to reach $21 billion. Half of the initial money in the fund came from shareholders of the three big utilities. The rest comes from a monthly charge on customer bills. Edison has credited AB 1054 with significantly limiting the company's liability for wildfires that its equipment ignites. In a securities filing last year, Edison said that because of AB 1054, any uninsured costs from wildfires after the law's adoption in July 2019 'are probable of recovery through electric rates' — rates that are paid by its customers. One question facing Edison now is potential liability from the Eaton fire. It has told its investors that AB 1054 and the safety certificate granted to it by California regulators in October will ease the possible financial hit. Damage from both the Eaton and Palisades fires in January has been estimated at more than $250 billion dollars. The company said in a presentation to Wall Street analysts on Feb. 27 that if its equipment is found to have started the Eaton fire, it wouldn't have to reimburse the state wildfire fund for claims paid to victims unless outside parties could raise 'serious doubt' that it had acted prudently. Even if that happened, the company said, the law would cap its liability to $3.9 billion. Regulators from the state Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety granted Edison a safety certificate on Oct. 31 — despite a myriad of problems they found in its fire prevention work. For example, the regulators said the company had not considered rare high wind events in their calculations of how to stop electrical equipment-caused fires. The company looked at high-wind events over the past 20 years, instead of a longer period. The company 'may be underestimating risks of ignition and high consequence, and therefore not hardening these assets because they are not identified,' the office wrote. According to the report, the company also had thousands of open work orders to fix equipment problems found in inspections. The Times detailed this month that Edison had dozens of pending work orders for clearing vegetation and other critical work on three transmission lines near the ignition site of the Eaton fire. April Maurath Sommer, executive director of the Wild Tree Foundation, a nonprofit environmental group, said that state officials responsible for overseeing fire prevention efforts by utilities have relaxed their standards following adoption of AB 1054. Before the law was passed, the commission held public hearings on utilities' fire prevention efforts and the cost, she said. That no longer happens. 'There's been a rollback of scrutiny,' she said. A report by the California state auditor in March 2022 faulted the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety for issuing safety certificates to utilities despite serious deficiencies in the latter's plans for reducing wildfire risk. A spokesperson for the Energy Safety office declined to address why Edison's safety certificate was approved despite problems identified by its staff. In a statement, he said AB 1054 had reduced wildfire risk, including by prompting the utilities to replace aging equipment and increase the frequency of inspections. The state Public Utilities Commission, which operates separately from the energy safety office, has the responsibility to evaluate whether wildfire prevention costs charged to customers are reasonable. It also has authority to fine utilities when they violate safety regulations. The auditors criticized the utilities commission for not holding the electric companies accountable. The commission 'does not use its authority to penalize utilities when its audits uncover violations,' the auditors wrote. Asked about that criticism, commission spokeswoman Terrie Prosper told The Times that the agency often sends a notice to utilities in violation of these rules, which gives them the opportunity to quickly correct problems without a citation or penalty. An Edison representative said in response to the problems found by regulators, it now uses 40 years of wind history — instead of 20 — in its safety plans, and that it also follows state regulations in inspecting and prioritizing repairs. In 2019, when AB 1054 was passed, PG&E had declared bankruptcy because of liabilities it faced from devastating wildfires, including the Camp fire in 2018, which destroyed the town of Paradise and killed 85 people. Early in 2019, the utilities asked lawmakers for liability protections that they said would strengthen them financially and ultimately help customers. For example, Edison told state officials in February 2019 that utilities 'should be deemed a prudent operator' and be allowed to recover costs from the fund if regulators had approved its wildfire mitigation plan. At the time the law was being debated, critics pointed out that a decade earlier the Public Utilities Commission had rejected the utilities' proposal to have ratepayers cover all damages from wildfires because of the 'limitless potential' for those costs to be shifted to customers. Staff pointed out it would invite lawsuits by those who said they were damaged by fires, while reducing utilities' incentive to prevent the fires. Despite those concerns, AB 1054 was drafted and passed in a matter of weeks. 'The fund is protecting credit ratings of the utilities, but it does not protect public safety,' said Maurath Sommer of the Wild Tree Foundation. Daniel Villasenor, a spokesman for Newsom, declined to answer questions but said in a statement that AB 1054 'is smart policy that has saved ratepayers and wildfire survivors billions while holding utilities accountable to some of the strongest safety standards in the nation.' At a Feb. 19 committee hearing in the California Assembly, an Edison executive explained how the utility has decreased the risk of wildfire in recent years by looking into the root cause of each fire its equipment starts. Not all the committee members were convinced. 'How long are we going to let them just figure it out and maybe not figure it out, maybe cause some huge disasters before they have some skin in the game too?' Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth) said at the hearing. 'It feels like they're giving dividends to their investors and raising rates on our constituents and then we have to cover…what seems like some negligence on a semi-regular basis,' she said. 'We have to rebalance this equation,' she said.
Los Angeles Times
30-01-2025
- General
- Los Angeles Times
What we know about Edison and the Eaton fire
Good morning. Here's what you need to know to start your day. Southern California Edison is under familiar scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether the utility's equipment sparked the deadly Eaton fire earlier this month. Edison provides power for millions of residents in Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange and a dozen other counties in the Golden State. The company has been found at fault for a few major wildfires in Southern California in recent years, including the 2017 Thomas fire and 2018's Woolsey fire. Now, facing multiple lawsuits from homeowners and a temporary restraining order, Edison has revealed more information about its equipment as investigators focus on an electrical transmission tower that may hold answers. Residents reported seeing flames at the base of the tower perched above Eaton Canyon, visible in photos and videos shared online. Two days after the fire started, the utility company reported that an early analysis showed 'no interruptions or electrical or operational anomalies until more than one hour after the reported start time of the fire.' But this week, SCE told state regulators that power lines over Eaton Canyon saw a surge in current just before the fire was first reported. The utility stated that a fault in a line about five miles away sent the increased current across its lines over Eaton Canyon. 'That equipment is now part of an expanded court order for Edison to preserve data and hardware that could shed some light as to what exactly caused the deadly blaze,' Times reporter Salvador Hernandez wrote this week. Critics say the delay in reporting the surge to investigators only raises more questions. 'They had a duty to tell the regulator,' Loretta Lynch, former president of the California Public Utilities Commission, told Salvador. 'They either didn't know, which should strike fear in the heart of every Californian that the utility didn't know that their system failed, or they did know, and the question is why didn't they say.' Edison wants ratepayers to cover the cost of damages for its role in previous wildfires. The state Public Utilities Commission is meeting today (Thursday) and will consider Edison's request to bill its customers to cover the cost of the $1.6 billion in damages it paid to victims of the deadly 2017 Thomas fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. The commission will hear a similar request from Edison at a later meeting to allow it to charge ratepayers for the $5.4 billion in damages it paid out after being found liable for the 2018 Woolsey fire in Ventura and Los Angeles counties. 'If both measures are approved, Edison customers will have a roughly 2% surcharge on their bills for the next 30 years, according to regulatory documents,' The Times' Melody Petersen explained. 'That means the average monthly bill for a residential customer, now $177, would rise to $181.' Edison's equipment ignited both wildfires, investigations found. Edison also violated multiple state safety regulations and impeded investigations, according to utility regulators. More recently, federal officials have accused Edison of withholding evidence that implicated its equipment as the cause of 2017's Creek fire. The company has denied the accusation and that it was responsible for that 2017 blaze. What about the Palisades fire? The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is leading the investigation into what caused the deadly fire in Pacific Palisades and Malibu, but it appears to be more of a mystery at this point. The probe has centered on a popular hiking trail where the blaze is believed to have started on the morning of Jan. 7. 'Investigators have scoured each part of the trail and hillside, breaking it down into a grid,' my colleagues Richard Winton and Hannah Fry reported this week. 'They have examined 250 leads, obtained 90 hours of relevant video and conducted 50 interviews.' Sources with knowledge of the probe told Richard and Hannah that the fire appears to have human origins, and they have two leading theories. Theory one: The fire was a reignition of a small brush fire that started on New Year's Eve and was knocked down in the same general area. Fire officials believe that earlier blaze was sparked by holiday fireworks. Theory two: The fire was entirely separate and started on Jan. 7 in a so-far unknown way. 'The ATF is seeking to issue a report on the cause of the fire in about 60 days,' they wrote. 'That would be considerably faster than for the deadly August 2023 fire on the Hawaiian island of Maui, which took a year. But that may depend on whether more sophisticated tests are needed back at the bureau's Maryland fire lab.' Waymo is getting ready to tackle Los Angeles' freeways. How have the robotaxis fared so far? Immigration arrests in churches? Some clergy say not so fast A Trump executive order seeks to defund providers of gender transition care for youth What else is going on Get unlimited access to the Los Angeles Times. Subscribe here. Your next great bottle of wine might come from this under-the-radar California region. The Santa Cruz Mountain range has long been a region for growing Burgundy grape varieties but fell off the radar in recent decades. Now, a new generation of winemakers is leading a revolution that's helping to redefine California wine. Other must reads How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Going out Staying in Bronwyn Jamrok writes: 'It wasn't nominated, but I think 'Sing Sing' was the best movie of the year. It was inspiring, relatable, realistic, and beautiful. I think many Americans will have a hard time relating to many of the best picture nominees, and it's too bad that the Academy won't draw more viewers in with this is gorgeous human story. It's also too bad that 'Sing Sing' wasn't widely distributed. My fingers are crossed for Colman Domingo to win best actor.' Email us at essentialcalifornia@ and your response might appear in the newsletter this week. On Jan. 30, 1972, the front page of the Los Angeles Times featured a story about California becoming one of the first states to adopt the use of street signs with symbols instead of words. Their introduction on freeways and local streets was part of a changeover to the simplified international method of symbol signing. Have a great day, from the Essential California team Ryan Fonseca, reporterDefne Karabatur, fellowAndrew Campa, Sunday reporterKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorHunter Clauss, multiplatform editorChristian Orozco, assistant editorStephanie Chavez, deputy metro editorKarim Doumar, head of newsletters Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
