Who pays when it comes to damage from California wildfires caused by utility equipment is the sticking point of end-of-session negotiations in Sacramento, and the waiting game continued down to the wire Friday, as a legislative deadline loomed.
For weeks, Eaton and Palisades fire survivors have been rallying and lobbying lawmakers in the state capital, wary of what they call a utility bailout from Gov. Gavin Newsom that would benefit giant utilities and insurance companies at the expense of survivors.
As the final hours of Newsom’s last legislative session tick down, the fate of several wildfire-related bills remain undecided, none more so than the utility liability relief proposal Newsom touted as putting survivors first, and critics decry as a utility bailout.
Leaving such landmark legislation on a hugely consequential issue to the 11th hour is ridiculous, said Joy Chen, executive director of the Every Fire Survivor’s Network, which counts more than 10,000 participants.
“This is why we have an eight-month democratic process,” she said. “We continue to reiterate that any legislation written today must preserve survivors’ rights to recover full economic and noneconomic damages, including the rights of smoke-damage survivors, outside any artificial line.”
The grassroots group of Eaton and Palisades fire survivors has spent weeks pushing back on the powerful monopoly of Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and Sempra, which owns San Diego Gas & Electric.
Chen said lawmakers should defer passage of the bill until January and “solve the real problem: investigate why these three companies keep causing catastrophic fires and what it will take to make Californians safer.”
Mindful that Newsom is eyeing his political legacy in California, Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, said Friday’s deadline must hew to what the governor said all the legislative wrangling has been for, “wildfire survivors first.”
“Any wildfire liability legislation written in these final hours must protect consumers and survivors, not cost them their money and their rights,” Court said. “The devil will be in the details, and Californians deserve to know exactly what any legislation will do before lawmakers are asked to vote. We are proud of the legislature for pushing back on the Governor’s bailout plans and expect they will continue to stand up for survivors and consumers.”
Alexander Robertson, one of the attorneys representing Eaton and Pacific Palisades fire survivors, decried what he called the “backroom dealing” occurring on Newsom’s wildfire reform plan.
“I’m very concerned any legislation that restrains fire victims’ rights and the ability to hold utility companies accountable is being negotiated behind closed doors … it will be presented as a done deal, in the dark of night,” said Robertson. “That type of backroom, closed-door legislation is inappropriate and shocking.”
Edison, which for months has acknowledged that its equipment might have ignited the disastrous blaze, faces thousands of survivor claims. But the Rosemead-based utility has also said that it acted “prudently” related to managing risk.
A showing of prudence is key under a 2019 law that Newsom introduced that protects the utilities from bankruptcies.
Still, the official cause came amid a battle in Sacramento that centered on a key tension: How to divide up the costs among utilities pressing to limit ever growing wildfires liability, ratepayers, insurers, taxpayers and survivors.
Officials at the governor’s office have dismissed the notion of any secret bailout, stating that the Newsom administration has been working on this issue for more than a year, since it became clear that an existing account, the California Wildfire Fund, to compensate wildfire survivors would be depleted following the 2025 Southern California wildfires.
Fire survivor advocates celebrated one win earlier this week, when Bloomberg reported on Aug. 25 that a plan backed by Democrats in the state Senate would not have limited insurers from suing utility companies to recoup payouts to policyholders.
Lawmakers rejected the governor’s plan to cap the damages wildfire victims can recover, and limiting how much insurance companies can get paid back. It could have cost policyholders hundreds of dollars per year and homeowners in high-risk areas thousands of dollars annually, critics said.
Legislators “have rejected nearly all of the Governor’s original bailout terms, including his attacks on survivors’ rights to recover economic and noneconomic damages and his devastating proposal to deny recovery to smoke-damage survivors outside an artificial fire-perimeter line,” Chen said. “Preserving these rights is an enormous victory for all Californians.”
“The Legislature listened to Californians and rejected the majority of the Governor’s end-of-session bailout, which would have cost them both their money and their rights,” Court added. “This appears to be a big victory for consumers and survivors. The leadership of the Senate and Assembly deserves enormous credit for standing up to the Governor and his utility allies.”
The wait was animated in recent weeks by frequent caravans and post-card campaigns pressed by Eaton and Palisades survivors. Such lobbying and rallying included civil rights and consumer advocates, faith leaders, community organizations.
Nic Arnzen, chair of the Altadena Town Council, spent Friday at Rep. Laura Friedman’s Burbank office with a small contingent of Altadena fire survivors to push for LA Fire Recovery Funds to be included in the next federal appropriations bill, when the Legislature is back in session.
It is part of the political education Altadenans are earning in the 19 months since the Eaton fire killed 19 and destroyed more than 9,000 structures, causing an estimated $7.8 billion in damage.
Arnzen, who remains displaced as he, his husband and their children rebuild their Altadena home, is working first in keeping his town connected with each other, and also lobbying for what many residents call “good” bills.
Sen. Sasha Renee Perez, D-Pasadena, authored SB 1090, which Arnzen said just passed in the Assembly and moved to the Senate. The bill would give Altadena the same protection as Pacific Palisades from state laws that allow developers to split lots.
“If it passes, it’s a huge win for us,” Arnzen said. “It’s a real David vs. Goliath situation: big, greedy, deep-pocket developers and the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement, with all their money, are up against vulnerable, beaten-down, broke Altadenans coming together to stand up for what is right.”
Another bill, AB 1642, authored by Pasadena Assemblymember John Harabedian, would create insurance standards for toxicity in homes and buildings after a wildfire. That proposal is awaiting votes in the Senate.
Pastor Anthony McFarland his wife Micheline lost what they call their generational home, and still mourn their failure to rescue their white poodle Ziggy, and cat Sophie, from the flames.
The couple continue to lead Lift International Church in Altadena, raising money to help survivors rebuild and recover physically, mentally and financially from the trauma of a catastrophe not of their making.
“Our position and request starts with a simple principle that every Californian understands: you break it, you fix it,” McFarland said Tuesday. “Cause the harm, bear the cost. Collect money for safety? Do the work. Destroy a community? Restore the survivors before rewarding shareholders. And if the system keeps producing the same catastrophic results, well, it’s about time that we change the system. And if the system doesn’t work, it’s because the people who are sitting in office does not work. So we’re just simply saying, do the right thing.”
Staff writers Tony Saavedra and Ryan Carter contributed to this report.