Business
Altadena asked Edison to bury power lines. Some fire victims say that could cost them $40,000
Connor Cipolla, an Eaton wildfire survivor, last year praised Southern California Edison’s plan of burying more than 60 miles of electric lines in Altadena as it rebuilds to reduce the risk of fire.
Then he learned he would have to pay $20,000 to $40,000 to connect his home, which was damaged by smoke and ash, to Edison’s new underground line. A nearby neighbor received an estimate for $30,000, he said.
“Residents are so angry,” Cipolla said. “We were completely blindsided.”
Other residents have tracked the wooden stakes Edison workers put up, showing where crews will dig. They’ve found dozens of places where deep trenches are planned under oak and pine trees that survived the fire. In addition to the added costs they face, they fear many trees will die as crews cut their roots.
“The damage is being done now and it’s irreversible,” homeowner Robert Steller said, pointing Maiden Lane to where an Edison crew was working.
For a week, Steller, who lost his home in the fire, parked his Toyota 4Runner over a recently dug trench. He said he was trying to block Edison’s crew from burying a large transformer between two towering deodar cedar trees. The work would “be downright fatal” to the decades-old trees, he said.
Altadena resident Robert Steller stands in front of his Toyota 4Runner that he parked strategically to prevent a Southern California Edison crew from digging too close to two towering cedar trees.
(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)
The buried lines are an upgrade that will make Altadena’s electrical grid safer and more reliable, Edison says, and it also will lower the risk that the company would have to black out Altadena neighborhoods during dangerous Santa Ana winds to prevent fires.
Brandon Tolentino, an Edison vice president, said the company was trying to find government or charity funding to help homeowners pay to connect to the buried lines. In the meantime, he said, Edison decided to allow owners of homes that survived the fire to keep their overhead connections until financial help was available.
Tolentino added that the company planned meetings to listen to residents’ concerns, including about the trees. He said crews were trained to stop work when they find tree roots and switch from using a backhoe to digging by hand to protect them.
“We’re minimizing the impact on the trees as we [put lines] underground or do any work in Altadena,” he said.
Although placing cables underground is a fire prevention measure, consumer advocates point out it’s not the most cost-effective step Edison can take to reduce the risk.
Undergrounding electric wires can cost more than $6 million per mile, according to the state Public Utilities Commission, far more than building overhead wires.
Because utility shareholders put up part of the money needed to pay for burying the lines, the expensive work means they will earn more profit. Last year, the commission agreed Edison investors could earn an annual return of 10.03% on that money.
Edison said in April it would spend as much as $925 million to underground and rebuild its grid in Altadena and Malibu, where the Palisades fire caused devastation. That amount of construction spending will earn Edison and its shareholders more than $70 million in profit before taxes — an amount billed to electric customers — in the first year, according to calculations by Mark Ellis, the former chief economist for Sempra, the parent company of Southern California Gas and San Diego Gas & Electric.
That annual return will continue over the decades while slowly decreasing each year as the assets are depreciated, Ellis said.
“They’re making a nice profit on this,” he said.
Tolentino said the company wasn’t doing the work to profit.
“The primary reason for undergrounding is the wildfire mitigation,” he said. “Our focus is supporting the community as they rebuild.”
It’s unclear if the Eaton fire would have been less disastrous if Altadena’s neighborhood power lines had been buried. The blaze ignited under Edison’s towering transmission lines that run down the mountainside in Eaton Canyon. Those lines carry bulk power through Edison’s territory. The power lines being put underground are the smaller distribution lines, which carry power to homes.
A power line outside the home of Altadena resident Connor Cipolla.
(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)
The investigation into the fire’s cause has not yet been released. Edison says a leading theory is that one of the Eaton Canyon transmission lines, which hadn’t carried power for 50 years, might have briefly reenergized, sparking the blaze. The fire killed 19 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes, businesses and other structures.
Edison said it has no plans to bury those transmission lines.
The high cost of undergrounding has become a contentious issue in Sacramento because, under state rules, most or all of it is billed to all customers of the utility.
Before the Eaton fire, Edison won praise from consumer advocates by installing insulated overhead wires that sharply cut the risk of the lines sparking a fire for a fraction of the cost. Since 2019, the company has installed more than 6,800 miles of the insulated wires.
“A dollar spent reconductoring with covered conductor provides … over four times as much value in wildfire risk mitigation as a dollar spent on underground conversion,” Edison said in testimony before the utilities commission in 2018.
By comparison, Pacific Gas & Electric has relied more on undergrounding its lines to reduce the risk of fire, pushing up customer utility bills. Now Edison has shifted to follow PG&E’s example.
Mark Toney, executive director of the the Utility Reform Network, a consumer group in San Francisco, said his staff estimates Edison spends $4 million per mile to underground wires compared with $800,000 per mile for installing insulated lines.
By burying more lines, customer bills and Edison’s profits could soar, Toney said.
“Five times the cost is equal to five times the profit,” he said.
Last spring, Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, told Gov. Gavin Newsom about the company’s undergrounding plans in a letter. Pizarro wrote that rules at the utility commission would require Altadena and Malibu homeowners to pay to underground the electric wire from their property line to the panel on their house. He estimated it would cost $8,000 to $10,000 for each home.
Residents who need to dig long trenches may pay far more than that, said Cipolla, who is a member of the Altadena Town Council.
An oak tree stands tall in an area impacted by the Eaton fires. Homeowners worry such trees could be at risk in the undergrounding work.
(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)
Last week, Cipolla showed a reporter the electrical panel on the back of his house, which is many yards away from where he needs to connect to Edison’s line. The company also initially wanted him to dig up the driveway he poured seven years ago, he said. Edison later agreed to a location that avoids the driveway.
Tolentino said Edison’s crews were working with homeowners concerned about the company’s planned locations for the buried lines.
“We understand it is a big cost and we’re looking at different sources to help them,” he said.
At the same time, some residents are fuming that, despite the undergrounding work, most of the town’s neighborhoods still will have overhead telecommunications lines. In other areas of the state, the telecommunications companies have worked with the electric utilities to bury all the lines, eliminating the visual clutter.
So far, the telecom companies have agreed to underground only a fraction of their lines in Altadena, Tolentino said.
Cipolla said Edison executives told him they eventually plan to chop off the top of new utility poles the company installed after the fire, leaving the lower portion that holds the telecom lines.
“There is no beautification aspect to it whatsoever,” Cipolla said.
As for the trees, Steller and other residents are asking Edison to adjust its construction map to avoid digging near those that remain after the fire. Altadena lost more than half of its tree cover in the blaze and as crews cleared lots of debris.
1. A pedestrian walks past Christmas Tree lane in Altadena. Christmas Tree Lane was officially listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1990. 2. A “We Love Altadena” sign hangs from a shrub on Christmas Tree Lane. 3. Parts of a chopped down tree rest on a street curb in Altadena.
Wynne Wilson, a fire survivor and co-founder of Altadena Green, pointed out that the lot across the street from the giant cedar trees on Maiden Lane has no vegetation, making it a better place for Edison’s transformer.
“This is needless,” Wilson said. “People are dealing with so much. Is Edison thinking we won’t fight over this?”
Carolyn Hove, raising her voice to be heard over the crew operating a jackhammer in front of her home, asked: “How much more are we supposed to go through?”
Hove said she doesn’t blame the crews of subcontractors the utility hired, but Edison’s management.
“It’s bad enough our community was decimated by a fire Edison started,” she said. “We’re still very traumatized, and then to have this happen.”
Business
Volvo to pay $197 million after hidden pollution device found in California truck engines
Volvo Group North America has agreed to pay nearly $197 million to resolve allegations from California regulators that company’s heavy-duty truck engines violated California emissions standards and certification requirements.
About 10,000 diesel truck engines manufactured by Volvo were equipped with an undisclosed device, causing them to release excessive levels of smog-forming pollution across California, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency that regulates air pollution and greenhouse gases.
Volvo is developing a software fix to repair many of these vehicles and extend their warranties at no cost to the owners. Eligible truck owners are expected to be notified of a non-mandatory recall on these trucks next year.
CARB found inconsistencies in the Swedish automaker’s data while testing trucks with Volvo engines from model year 2010 to 2016, which resulted in the investigation and ensuing settlement.
“This case underscores why CARB’s compliance testing and strong enforcement are essential to protecting the state’s air quality and public health,” said Lauren Sanchez, chair of the state Air Resources Board. “Our responsibility goes beyond adopting regulations — we are committed to upholding them by identifying violations and holding companies accountable for meeting emissions standards.”
Under the settlement, Volvo will pay $17.5 million in civil penalties to reimburse the state for the cost of the investigation and support its vehicle-testing operations. Another $179 million will go toward investing in clean-air initiatives, such as electric vehicle incentive programs, to offset air pollution that resulted from the alleged violations.
Business
Commentary: A surge in Nevada data center construction threatens the electricity supply for 49,000 Californians
Local opposition has blocked or delayed more than a dozen huge data center projects around the country. But these Californians don’t get a vote on Nevada projects that could affect their electricity supply.
Those big data centers being built for artificial intelligence firms are in bad odor nationwide.
Seven in 10 Americans oppose projects in their local communities, according to a recent Gallup poll. More than a dozen, valued at some $64 billion, have been blocked or delayed by local opposition in recent years.
But what happens when the people directly affected by these project plans don’t get a vote?
Data centers did not influence this decision.
— NV Energy, explaining its move to end service to 49,000 California customers. But is it telling the truth?
That’s the quandary faced by 49,000 residents living on the California side of Lake Tahoe, mostly in the city of South Lake Tahoe. The surge in construction of data centers in Nevada is prompting the Nevada utility that supplies 75% of the Californians’ electricity to cut them off next year.
The California-regulated utility that carries the electricity over the state line to their homes and businesses has assured them that it will find alternative sources to protect them from losing service — but hasn’t promised that their rates won’t increase because of the transition.
“It’s like we don’t exist,” Danielle Hughes, the head of a local energy nonprofit and an advocate for the customers, told me. The crisis facing those residents is just the latest in a long line of indignities they have suffered thanks to several unique characteristics of their energy market, Hughes says.
For one thing, they are permanent residents of the community — teachers, firefighters, police, and service workers at the hotels, restaurants and resorts that bring in a tidal wave of visitors every winter. The latter, as well as vacation-home owners and renters, generate seasonal electricity demands that drive up power costs year-round.
That means that the permanent residents are in effect subsizing the visitors, even though they’re lower-income ratepayers than the generally well-heeled vacationers.
Before delving deeper into the issues for the permanent residents, let’s examine the effect of the large-scale data centers being built and proposed in Nevada, and more generally coast to coast.
Nevada has emerged as a prime location for data centers, in part due to the wide open, undeveloped acreage available for construction. More than 60 data centers have sprung up around Reno and Las Vegas, with many more slated to rise in the northern part of the state, according to a survey by the Desert Research Institute, a Nevada nonprofit.
“We’re right at the epicenter for global expansion” of data centers, observed Sean McKenna, a co-author of the report.
The existing data centers consumed 22% of Nevada’s electric generating capacity in 2024, DRI calculated. If all those under construction and on the drawing board are completed, that figure would rise to 35% by 2030. NV Energy, the Nevada utility that provides the electricity for the California side of Lake Tahoe, estimates that the electricity demand for just the 12 projects being planned would come to 5,900 megawatts — nearly three times the generating capacity of Hoover Dam.
That construction frenzy is likely to bring some of the same drawbacks that have provoked local communities to militate against data centers — not only pressure on existing electricity capacity, but also a voracious appetite for water due to the cooling needs of the computerized equipment managing the data for AI applications. Residents in the neighborhoods of data centers have also complained of incessant noise coming from their 24/7 operations.
With global warming driving up temperatures in Nevada’s semiarid and desert zones, they add, residents will find themselves in a contest with data center owners for an already inadequate supply of power in the state. DRI warns: “Local utilities and ratepayers in data center cluster regions like Northern Nevada also risk bearing the costs of subsidizing AI and computing services as power grids expand their infrastructure.”
In many communities, the result has been a vigorous and vocal backlash, including in California. They’ve packed town halls, prompted state and local political leaders to legislate limits on their growth or even to ban them.
That brings us back to the situation around Lake Tahoe.
In terms of its electric utility service, the region has long been an outlier. About 25% of its power comes from two solar farms operated by Liberty Utilities, but the rest comes from NV Energy; the reason is that it’s unconnected with the California transmission grid but accessible via a line from Nevada.
As a result, it falls into the cracks among energy regulators. Because it’s not part of the California grid, the California Public Utilities Commission has only limited jurisdiction over its service, although it has the authority to approve its electricity rates. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission doesn’t oversee the customers’ service at all, because they’re not Nevada residents.
The region is also unusual because its peak energy demand comes in the winter; most of the rest of California peaks in the summer, when air conditioners are on full blast.
Hughes and other residents have maintained that because the CPUC hasn’t modeled electricity demand for their small region, they have been paying for infrastructure that doesn’t serve them.
“We’ve been paying for assets in Nevada,” Hughes says, “without it being tracked by the state of California.”
Liberty does charge permanent residents in the Tahoe area about 2% less than the rate for part-time residents, but the discount should be much larger, Hughes says. Liberty didn’t respond to my request for comment.
Earlier this year, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would no longer serve as its wholesale energy provider after mid-May next year, and urged Liberty to make haste to secure an alternate supplier.
Liberty promised its customers in a recent statement that they “will not be left without service” as a result of the change. “This does not mean the power is shutting off,” Eric Schwarzrock, president of Liberty Utilities, said at a South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting last month, according to the news site SFGate. “Energy companies, utilities, large customers change energy supply frequently.”
Liberty and NV Energy both attributed the change to a preexisting agreement that anticipated that NV Energy would eventually cease providing power to Liberty’s customers, although their interpretations of the deal and the impetus for the change appear to be at odds.
The “long-standing agreements and planning assumptions … date back more than a decade,” NV Energy said in a May 14 statement. That was “well before data center growth became a factor,” the utility said. “Data centers did not influence this decision.”
That is, to be charitable, dubious. How do we know? Liberty said so in a March 6 letter to the California Public Utilities Commission, requesting permission to take “immediate action” to find alternative providers.
The letter stated that Liberty had expected its arrangement with NV Energy to “continue indefinitely.” During their last negotiations for an extension of the deal, however, NV Energy informed Liberty that it would cease serving Liberty on May 31, 2027, with a possible extension to Dec. 31.
“This change of stance by NV Energy was a surprise to Liberty,” the letter said. Liberty ascribed NV Energy’s decision to new “market circumstances” in the latter’s home service region. Among them: “A number of entities are seeking to add large loads such as data centers into the area.”
NV Energy says it will continue serving Liberty’s customers until Liberty secures a new supplier, even if it misses the May 2027 deadline; the ultimate deadline is Dec. 31, 2027, when NV Energy expects to complete its 350-mile Greenlink West transmission line between Las Vegas and the Reno area, part of a $4.2-billion infrastructure upgrade.
Yet that still leaves an open question that should make those customers nervous: How much will they be paying for power?
In its recent statement to customers, Liberty made only the vaguest of promises. “While no utiulity can predict the exact future cost of energy,” it said, “affordability is a primary goal” in its search for new suppliers. “With a competitive bidding process, we aim to find a cost-effective solution for your monthly bill.”
But any new supplier would have to come from outside California, because of the region’s lack of any connection with the state’s grid. And generators in nearby states face their own rising demands from data centers, drought and global warming.
The drawbacks of these massive industrial installations are beginning to be felt by their neighbors, including higher electricity prices and dwindling water supplies. They’re only going to get worse.
Business
Video: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft
new video loaded: Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft
transcript
transcript
Jury Rejects Elon Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft
Elon Musk had accused OpenAI of “stealing a charity” by attaching a commercial company to Open AI, which was founded as a nonprofit. But a jury ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.
-
“The evidence that Mr. Musk’s lawsuit was an after-the-fact contrivance by a competitor was overwhelming.” “This reminds me of key moments in this country’s history. The siege of Charleston, the Battle of Bunker Hill, these were major losses for Americans. But who won the war? And this one is not over. And to sum it up, I can sum it up in one word: appeal.”
By Meg Felling
May 18, 2026
-
Washington2 minutes ago
Washington Lottery Mega Millions, Cash Pop results for May 19, 2026
-
Wisconsin8 minutes ago
Wisconsin Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 results for May 19, 2026
-
West Virginia14 minutes agoThis week in West Virginia history
-
Wyoming20 minutes agoWyoPreps’ 2026 Wyoming High School Track and Field State Championship Preview
-
Crypto26 minutes agoK33 Research Says Bitcoin’s $60K Bottom Was Bear Market’s Maximum Drawdown
-
Finance32 minutes agoElections Board Rule Could Limit Public Access to Campaign Finance Complaints
-
Fitness38 minutes agoLeast fit people need to do more exercise than fittest to get same benefit – study
-
Movie Reviews50 minutes agoJack Ryan: Ghost War review – Amazon’s Tom Clancy series spawns middling movie