Politics
Wildfire victims decry state law protecting utilities from cost of disasters they cause
A year after the Eaton fire, survivors and the state’s electric utilities are clashing over whether state law should continue to protect the companies from the cost of disastrous wildfires they ignite.
Southern California Edison says that with the help of those state laws it expects to pay little or even none of the damage costs of the Eaton fire, which its equipment is suspected of sparking.
But in recent filings to state officials, fire victims and consumer advocates say the law has gone too far and made the utilities’ unaccountable for their mistakes, leading to even more fires.
“What do you think will happen if you constantly protect perpetrators of fires,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
At the same time, Edison and the state’s two other big for-profit electric companies are lobbying state officials for even more protection from the cost of future fires to reassure their investors.
If government investigators find Edison’s equipment ignited the Eaton fire, at least seven of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires would have been caused by the three utilities’ equipment.
The debate over how far the state should go to protect the electric companies from the cost of utility-sparked wildfires is playing out in Sacramento at the California Earthquake Authority. The authority is managing a broad study, ordered by Gov. Gavin Newsom, aimed at determining how to better protect Californians from catastrophic wildfires.
Chen said she was concerned by a meeting this month that she and another survivor had been invited to by authority officials and consultants they had hired to work on the study.
She said a primary focus of the discussion was how to shield utilities and their shareholders from the damages of future fires, rather than on the costs to survivors and other Californians “living with the consequences of utility-caused fires.”
Chen later sent authority officials an email pointing to a Times story that detailed how four of five top executives at Edison International were paid higher bonuses the year before the Eaton fire even as the number of fires sparked by the utility’s equipment soared.
“The predictable outcome of continuing to protect shareholders and executives from the consequences of their own negligence is not theoretical. It is observable. More catastrophic fires,” she wrote.
“The Eaton Fire was the predictable outcome of this moral hazard,” she added.
An authority spokesman said Chen and other wildfire victims’ perspectives were “invaluable” to officials as they complete the study that is due April 1.
He said the authority had made “no foregone conclusions” of what the report will say.
Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, told the Times last month that he disagreed strongly with claims that state law had gone too far in protecting utilities.
“The law keeps us very accountable,” Pizarro said. He added that the laws were needed to shield utilities from bankruptcy, which could drive electric bills higher.
In December, Edison and the two other utilities told authority officials in a filing that they and their shareholders shouldn’t have to pay any more into the state wildfire fund, which was created to pay for the damages of utility-caused fires.
So far, electric customers and utility shareholders have split the cost of the fund.
The companies said that making their shareholders contribute more to the fund “undermines investor confidence in California utilities.”
They proposed that officials instead find a new way to help pay for catastrophic fires, possibly using state income taxes, which require the wealthy to pay a higher share.
“Instead of relying on an increase in utility bills to cover extreme catastrophic losses, something that disproportionately impacts lower-income Californians, this system could share costs more equitably across society,” the three companies wrote.
While the investigation into the cause of the Eaton fire has not yet been released, Edison has said a leading theory is that a century-old transmission line no longer in service was briefly re-energized and sparked the fire.
Edison last used that transmission line in Eaton Canyon more than fifty years ago. Utility executives said they kept it up because they believed it would be used in the future.
Utilities and state regulators have long known that old, unused lines posed fire risks. In 2019, investigators traced the Kincade fire in Sonoma County, which destroyed 374 homes and other structures, to a dormant transmission line owned by Pacific Gas & Electric.
The electric companies’ legal protections from utility-sparked fires date back to 2019 when Gov. Newsom led an effort to pass a measure known as AB 1054.
Then, PG&E was in bankruptcy because of costs it faced from a series of wildfires, including the 2018 Camp fire. That blaze, caused by a decades-old transmission line, destroyed most of the town of Paradise and killed 85 people.
Under the 2019 law, a utility is automatically deemed to have acted prudently if its equipment starts a wildfire. Then, all fire damages, except for $1 billion dollars covered by customer-paid insurance, are covered by the state wildfire fund.
The law allows outside parties to provide evidence that the utility didn’t act prudently before the fire, but even in that event, the utility’s financial responsibility for damages is capped.
Edison has told its investors that it believes it acted prudently before the Eaton fire and will have the damage costs fully covered.
The company says the maximum it may have to pay under the law if it is found to be imprudent is $4 billion. Damages for the Eaton fire have been estimated to be as high as $45 billion.
Pizarro said the possibility of Edison paying as much as $4 billion shows that state law is working to keep utilities accountable.
“If we were imprudent and we end up getting penalized by $4 billion for the Eaton fire, that’s going to be a very painful day for this company — not only the pain of being told that we were imprudent, but also the financial toll of a penalty of that size,” he said.
Chen’s group is not alone in urging the state to change the laws protecting utilities from wildfire costs.
William Abrams of the Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition detailed in a filing how the present laws had been shaped by the utilities and “a small circle of well-resourced legal and financial actors.”
AB 1054 had weakened safety regulations, he said, while leaving wildfire survivors across California “under-compensated and struggling to rebuild.”
He proposed that the companies be required to use shareholder money and suspend their dividends to pay for fire damages.
Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, told state officials that Edison is expected to have damages of the Eaton fire covered despite questions of why it did not remove the “ghost line” in Eaton Canyon and failed to shut down its transmission lines, despite the high winds on the night of the fire.
“We recommend establishing a negligence standard,” Balber said, “for when utilities’ shareholders need to pay.”
Among the consultants the authority has hired to help write the study is Rand, the Santa Monica-based research group; and Aon, a consulting firm.
Both Rand and Aon have been paid by Edison for other work. Most recently, Edison hired Rand to review some of the data and methods it used to determine how much to offer Eaton fire victims in its voluntary compensation program.
Chen said hiring Edison’s consultants to help prepare the study created a conflict of interest.
The authority spokesman said officials were confident that their “open and inclusive study process” will protect its integrity.
Aon did not return a request for comment.
“Our clients have no influence over our findings,” said Leah Polk, a Rand spokesperson. “We follow the evidence and maintain strict standards to ensure our work remains objective and unbiased.”
Chen said she was not convinced. “You have the fox guarding the hen house,” she said.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Saturday that the Trump administration is sanctioning a senior Nicaraguan official over alleged human rights violations.
Rubio said the U.S. is designating Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in “gross violations of human rights” under the government of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, marking what he said was the latest effort to hold the regime accountable.
“The Trump administration continues to hold the Murillo-Ortega dictatorship accountable for brutal human rights violations against Nicaraguans,” Rubio said in a post on X. “I’m designating Nicaraguan Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in human rights violations.”
RUBIO TESTIFIES IN TRIAL OF EX-FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN ALLEGEDLY HIRED BY MADURO GOVERNMENT TO LOBBY FOR VENEZUELA
Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the State Department, April 14, 2026. The U.S. announced sanctions on a Nicaraguan official tied to alleged human rights abuses under the Ortega-Murillo government. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The designation was made under Section 7031(c), which allows the State Department to bar foreign officials and their immediate family members from entering the United States due to involvement in significant corruption or human rights abuses.
The State Department has said the Ortega-Murillo government has engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings following mass protests that began in April 2018.
“Nearly eight years ago, the Rosario Murillo and Daniel Ortega dictatorship unleashed a brutal wave of repression against Nicaraguans who courageously stood against the regime’s increased tyranny, corruption, and abuse,” the statement reads.
The State Department said that the sanction marked the anniversary of the 2018 protests, after which more than 325 protesters were murdered in the aftermath.
A panel of U.N.-backed human rights experts previously accused Nicaragua’s government of systematic abuses “tantamount to crimes against humanity,” following an investigation into the country’s crackdown on political dissent, according to The Associated Press.
The experts said the repression intensified after mass protests in 2018 and has since expanded across large parts of society, targeting perceived opponents of the government.
TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF VISA RESTRICTION POLICY IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the 199th Independence Day anniversary, in Managua, Nicaragua Sept. 15, 2020. (Nicaragua’s Presidency/Cesar Perez/Handout via Reuters)
Nicaragua’s government has rejected those findings.
The designation follows a series of recent U.S. actions targeting the Ortega-Murillo government. In February, the State Department sanctioned five senior Nicaraguan officials tied to repression, citing arbitrary detention, torture, killings and the targeting of clergy, media and civil society.
Earlier this week, the department also announced sanctions on individuals and companies linked to Nicaragua’s gold sector, including two of Ortega and Murillo’s sons, accusing the regime of using the industry to generate foreign currency, launder assets and consolidate power within the ruling family.
The State Department said the move is part of ongoing efforts to hold the Nicaraguan government accountable for its actions.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Nicaraguan government and its embassy in Washington for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A man waves a Nicaraguan flag during a demonstration to commemorate Nicaragua’s national Day of Peace, which is celebrated in the country on April 19, and to protest against the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in San Jose, Costa Rica on April 16, 2023. (Jose Cordero/AFP)
The Trump administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture in the Western Hemisphere in recent months, including a Jan. 3, 2026, operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The U.S. has also carried out a series of strikes targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the region, part of a broader crackdown tied to regional security and narcotics enforcement efforts.
WASHINGTON — Upbeat claims from President Trump over an imminent peace deal to end the war with Iran were met with deep skepticism Friday across the Middle East, where Iranian and Israeli officials questioned the prospects for a lasting agreement that would satisfy all parties.
The outlines of an agreement began to emerge that would provide Iran with a major strategic victory — and a potential financial windfall — allowing the Islamic Republic to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz to exact significant concessions from the United States and its ally Israel as Trump presses for a swift end to the conflict.
In a series of social media posts and interviews with reporters, Trump announced that the strait was “fully open,” vowing Tehran would never again attempt to control it. But Iranian officials and state media said that conditions remained on passage through the waterway, including the imposition of tolls and coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iranian diplomats posted threats that its closure could resume at any time of their choosing, and warned that restrictions would return unless the United States agreed to lift a blockade of its ports. Trump had said Friday that the blockade would remain in place.
“The conditional and limited reopening of a portion of the Strait of Hormuz is solely an Iranian initiative, one that creates responsibility and serves to test the firm commitments of the opposing side,” said a top aide to Iran’s president, dismissing Trump’s statements on the contours of a deal as “baseless.”
“If they renege on their promises,” he added, “they will face dire consequences.”
In an overture to Iran, Trump said Israel would be “prohibited” from conducting additional military strikes in Lebanon, where the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to prevent Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy militia, from rearming, a potential threat to communities in the Israeli north.
But in a speech delivered in Hebrew, Netanyahu would say only that Israel had agreed to a temporary ceasefire, while members of his Cabinet warned that Israel Defense Forces operations in southern Lebanon were not yet finished. A top ally of the prime minister at a right-wing Israeli news outlet warned that Trump was “surrendering” to Iran in the talks.
It was a day of public messaging from a president eager to end a war that has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has driven a rise in gas prices that could weigh on his party entering this year’s midterm elections.
Yet, Republican allies of the president have begun warning him that an agreement skewed heavily in Tehran’s favor could carry political costs of its own.
Trump was forced to deny an Axios report Friday that his negotiating team had offered to release $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for Tehran agreeing to hand over its fissile material, buried under rubble from a U.S. bombing raid last year.
That sum would amount to more than 10 times what President Obama released to Iran under a 2015 nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that was the subject of fierce Republican criticism in the decade since.
“I have every confidence that President Trump will not allow Iran to be enriched by tens of billions of dollars for holding the world hostage and creating mayhem in the region,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a strong supporter of the war. “No JCPOAs on President Trump’s watch.”
Still, Trump said in a round of interviews that a deal could be reached in a matter of days, ending less than two weeks of negotiations.
He claimed that Tehran had agreed to permanently end its enrichment of uranium — a development that, if true, would mark a dramatic reversal for the Islamic Republic from decades developing its nuclear program, and from just 10 days ago, when Iranian diplomats rejected a U.S. proposal of a 20-year pause on domestic enrichment in favor of a five-year moratorium.
He said Iran had agreed never to build nuclear weapons — a pledge Tehran has made repeatedly, including under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in a religious decree from then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and in the 2015 agreement — while continuing nuclear activities viewed by the international community as exceeding civilian needs.
And he repeatedly stated that Iran had agreed to the removal of its enriched uranium from the country, either to the United States or to a third party. Iranian state media stated Friday afternoon that a proposal to remove the country’s highly enriched uranium had been “rejected.”
Iran’s agreement to allow safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is linked to a ceasefire in Lebanon that the Israeli Cabinet approved for only a 10-day period. Regardless of whether it holds or is extended, Israeli officials said their military would not retreat from its current positions in southern Lebanon — opening up Israeli forces to potential attack by Hezbollah militants unbound by a truce brokered by the Lebanese government.
The Lebanese people, Hezbollah officials said, have “the right to resist” Israeli occupation of their land. Whether the fighting resumes, the group added, “will be determined based on how developments unfold.”
An Iranian official threw cold water on the prospects of reaching a comprehensive peace deal in the coming days, telling Reuters that a temporary extension of the current ceasefire, set to expire Tuesday, would “create space for more talks on lifting sanctions on Iran and securing compensation for war damages.”
“In exchange, Iran will provide assurances to the international community about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program,” the official said, adding that “any other narrative about the ongoing talks is a misrepresentation of the situation.”
Trump told reporters Friday that the talks will continue through the weekend.
While Trump claimed there aren’t “too many significant differences” remaining, he said the United States would continue the blockade until negotiations are finalized and formalized.
“When the agreement is signed, the blockade ends,” the president told reporters in Phoenix.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN
Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20343
February 7, 2016
Memorandum to the Conference
Re: 15A773 West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A776 Basin Elec. Power Cooperative, et al. v. EPA, et al. 15A787 Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A778 Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al.
-
15A793 North Dakota v. EPA, et al.
I agree with Steve that we should direct the States to seek an extension from the EPA before asking this Court to intervene. We could also include, at the end of such an order, language along the lines of the following, to encourage the D. C. Circuit to act expeditiously in its resolution of this matter: “In light of that court’s agreement to consider this case on an expedited schedule, we are confident that it will [or even: we urge it to] render a decision with appropriate dispatch.” See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U. S. 1301, 1308 (2005) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers); Kemp v. Smith, 463 U. S. 1344, 1345 (1983) (Powell, J., in chambers); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304, 1305, n. 2 (1973) (Marshall, J., in chambers).
The unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause. The applicants ask us to enjoin a regulation pending initial review in the court of appeals. As we often say, “we are a court of review, not of first view.” See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718 n. 7 (2005); cf. Doe, 546 U. S., at 1308 (“Re- spect for the assessment of the Court of Appeals is especially warranted when that court is proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition.”). As far as I can tell, it would be unprecedented for us to second-guess the D. C. Circuit’s deci sion that a stay is not warranted, without the benefit of full briefing or a prior judi- cial decision.
On the merits, this is a difficult case involving a complex statutory and regu- latory regime. Although the parties’ abbreviated discussion of the issues at stake here makes it difficult for me to determine with any confidence which side is likely to ultimately prevail, it seems to me that at this stage the government has the bet- ter of the arguments. The Chief’s memo focuses on the applicants’ argument that the “best system of emission reduction” refers “solely [to] installation of control technologies (e.g., scrubbers).” 2/5 Memo, at 2. The ordinary meaning of “system” is in fact quite broad, appearing to encompass what EPA has done here. Of course, we would want to consider this term in the larger context of the Clean Air Act’s regula-
-
Sports2 minutes agoAfter 55 years as a broadcaster in L.A., Randy Rosenbloom is leaving town
-
World14 minutes agoBulgaria votes in eighth election in five years
-
News44 minutes agoReal estate investors are buying up long-term care facilities. Residents can suffer
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoFormer Piston shows Detroit what they’re missing as he dominates next to LeBron
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoEastbound I-80 closure in San Francisco snarls traffic, slows business
-
Videos3 hours agoCan Keir Starmer survive the latest Mandelson revelations? | BBC News
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoPetar Musa’s Brace Not Enough as FC Dallas Draws LA Galaxy 2-2
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoMLS: Messi double helps Inter Miami slay Rapids in front of huge crowd