Business
Edison under scrutiny for Eaton fire. Who pays liability will be 'new frontier' for California
Six years ago, Pacific Gas & Electric filed for bankruptcy after it was found liable for sparking a succession of devastating wildfires, including the blaze that destroyed the town of Paradise and led to more than 100 deaths.
Wall Street investors lost confidence and ratings agencies threatened to downgrade California’s investor-owned utilities, prompting legislators to come up with an innovative solution: the establishment of a $21-billion wildfire fund, split equally between shareholders and utility customers.
Now, after two major wildfires have destroyed thousands of homes and left at least two dozen dead in and around Los Angeles, the state’s wildfire fund would face its first major test if another utility is found liable for sparking the blazes.
Even the lawmaker who spearheaded legislation to set up the wildfire fund is not sure whether his efforts to mitigate the risk to utility companies — allowing them to keep functioning in a state prone to escalating risk of wildfires — is enough.
“This is the most profound test case that the fund will potentially be up against,” said Christopher Holden, a former Democratic legislator who sponsored the bill that created the fund. “This is a new frontier,” said Holden, who lives in Pasadena and had to evacuate during the Eaton fire.
“It was a new frontier when we wrote the bill — and now, just five years later, we’re going through another frontier.”
If investigators determine that a utility company caused the Eaton or Palisades fire, it could send shock waves across the utility industry and the broader insurance market.
Mark Toney, executive director of TURN, The Utility Reform Network, said the massive scope of the L.A. County fires raised significant questions about the fund’s ability to cover insurance liability. Even if the fund is able to bail out utility companies for the fires, it’s uncertain whether it could then cover fires that may crop up in the future.
“Will the fund work right?” Toney said. “Who ends up paying?”
The causes of the fires have yet to be determined.
Investigators looking into the Eaton fire — which caused at least 17 fatalities and damaged an estimated 7,000 structures across Pasadena and Altadena — are focusing on an area around a Southern California Edison electrical transmission tower in Eaton Canyon.
Edison has denied fault in the Eaton fire. In a statement to The Times, the company said that its work to mitigate wildfires had cut the risk of catastrophic fires by 85% to 90% compared with the risk before 2018.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the municipal utility that operates in Pacific Palisades, says it did not opt into the wildfire fund because it would have been too costly for its customers. If the large municipal utility was liable for the Palisades fire, the city of L.A. could face exorbitant financial costs.
But sources with knowledge of the investigation have told The Times that the fire, which started in the Skull Rock area north of Sunset Boulevard, appears to have human origins. Officials are looking into whether a small fire possibly sparked by New Year’s Eve fireworks could somehow have rekindled Jan 7.
Michael Wara, an energy and climate scholar at Stanford University, said the state’s entire insurance landscape, not just California’s wildfire fund, might have to be recalibrated if a utility company were found to have caused a major L.A. fire.
“The big question is how available and affordable is overall insurance?” said Wara, who has served on the California Catastrophe Response Council, the fund’s oversight body. “California, I think, is going to face greater challenges than it has over even the last few years, when it hasn’t been easy for its primary insurers and other entities to access these global reinsurance markets that fund losses after a catastrophe.”
Under California law, utility companies are strictly liable for all damages to real property associated with a fire, including houses.
The wildfire fund is a new model in which the state’s three big owner-operated utility companies — Pacific Gas & Electric Co., San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison — pay into a fund, which they can then tap into if their equipment is determined to have caused a blaze. When that happens, they are responsible, on their own, for the first $1 billion of losses. After that, the wildfire fund will pay.
“If the wildfire fund did not exist today, Edison might be in real trouble,” Wara said. “We would see something probably similar to what happened to PG&E after the Camp fire.”
Back then, Wara said, utilities were held to a standard of strict liability: If electrical equipment was found to have caused the fire, they were on the hook.
Now, if Edison is ultimately held responsible, Wara said, the company can go to the wildfire fund and get money.
“That’s really important in terms of making sure that the victims are made whole, at least for their property losses,” he said.
Although it is too soon to estimate the damage of the Eaton fire, Wara said thousands of structures have been lost in an area where the average home value is around $1.3 million. Costs, he said, could reach $10 billion.
If officials find that Edison caused the fire but acted responsibly, Wara said, as much as half of the fund’s $21 billion could be depleted.
“That’s half the fund in one fire — five years into the life of the fund,” said Wara, who has served as a wildfire commissioner for California and a member of the California Catastrophe Response Council, the oversight body of the California wildfire fund.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the wildfire fund has so far amassed only $14 billion, because utility companies cannot immediately expect ratepayers to pay their share of half the $21 billion.
“If you are an investor in PG&E or Edison, you might look at this and think, ‘Hmm, I thought the fund was big enough. Maybe now I’m not so sure.’ The fund is there to provide confidence. If the fund isn’t big enough, there will be less confidence.”
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, will lead the investigation into what caused the fires.
Then, the California Public Utility Commission determines whether the utility company acted reasonably or unreasonably and, if so, to what degree.
If a utility was found to have failed to act prudently, Wara said, it would have to reimburse the fund. The amount it would pay, however, is capped on the size of the reimbursement relative to the size of their rate base.
Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro told Bloomberg Television that state regulations allowed the company’s holder liability to be capped at $3.9 billion.
“The reason the cap is there is if Edison is reimbursing the fund, that’s basically electricity customers reimbursing the fund,” Wara said. “Edison will go to the California Utility Commission and say, ‘We need this money to be expensed in rates.’”
The fund would also have to pay for wrongful deaths, Wara said, but that’s a different kind of claim.
“You have to show negligence, and that may be hard to prove, actually, because Edison may have acted reasonably, and yet the fire still was set by their equipment,” Wara said. “Edison would have a lot of reason to claim that it has acted reasonably, in a sense that it has spent enormous sums to try to reduce the risk, and there’s an agency that’s overseeing all of this and approving and monitoring compliance with its plans.”
Still, even if the wildfire fund bailed out Edison, there could be grave consequences for Edison and other utility companies. If a large portion of the wildfire fund’s $21 billion was depleted, that could affect market perception of the fund, negatively affect utility company credit scores, and plunge investor-owned utilities — which cover about 80% customers across the state of California — into chaos.
On Tuesday afternoon, shares for Edison International, the utility’s parent company, rose less than 1% to $57.27, marking a more than 24% drop in the week since the fires broke out. That represents a more than $7 billion decline in the company’s market cap.
“If the [utility] market collapses, then we’ve got a catastrophic situation,” Holden said. “We have to secure the market going forward.”
Last fall, state regulators criticized Southern California Edison for falling behind in inspecting transmission lines in areas at high risk of wildfires.
Utility safety officials also said in a report that the company’s visual inspections of splices in its transmission lines were sometimes failing to find dangerous problems.
“We have not seen in our telemetry any indication of an electrical anomaly,” Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro said Monday on Bloomberg Television. “Typically, when you have a fire across infrastructure, you see voltage dropping. We have not seen that in our study.”
Pizarro said Edison had turned off distribution lines near the start of the Eaton blaze before it erupted in a canyon near Altadena, but not the transmission lines. “Transmission lines are larger and stronger,” he said, “and so they can operate safely at higher wind speeds.”
Several of California’s most destructive wildfires in the last decades have been caused by aging electrical equipment. The 2018 Camp fire was caused by 100-year-old high voltage transmission towers. The 2019 Kincade fire was caused by a line built half a century ago. It may be the case, Wara said, that California’s older utility infrastructure, even when inspected, is not up to the job.
“A lot of the transmission system in California is quite old,” Wara said. “There were pulses of construction activity that led to the system we have and the last big one was when Pat Brown was governor.. .If something failed on that tower that caused ground faults, at some point we need to ask ourselves… maybe we shouldn’t be relying on old infrastructure?”
In an era when hurricane-force winds can whip up wildfires that engulf vast areas, Toney questioned whether it made sense for a utility company to be responsible for the fate of every home. Wildfires, he said, are caused not just by faulty utility equipment, but by lightning, arson, even legal fireworks, and then fueled by poor development and insufficient cutting back of vegetation and landscaping.
“It’s a mistake just to isolate utility,” Toney said. “It’s time for a new paradigm. When it comes to the cost of rebuilding, the utilities may not be big enough.”
Business
Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon
President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.
In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”
“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.
The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.
Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.
The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.
“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.
Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”
The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.
On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.
The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.
Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.
“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”
Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.
Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.
“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.
Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.
Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.
“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”
Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.
The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”
Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.
The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT