CEA SB 254 Recommendations Miss the Mark for Wildfire Survivors’ Safe Recovery
The California Earthquake Authority (CEA), acting as Administrator of the California Wildfire Fund, has issued its report pursuant to SB 254 for amending policy on the recovery for fire caused by utilities. Among its recommendations is an analysis of whether wildfire survivors’ recoveries should be limited in litigation. The report specifically raises potential restrictions on attorneys’ fees, limits on economic and non-economic damages, limits on claims by insurers and public entities, limits on claims by those outside the fire perimeter, and aggregate caps on liability per event. This appears on page 21 of the PDF, listed as page 15 in the document, under Public Utilities Code Section 719(c)(7).
The recommendation to limit on claims by those outside the fire perimeter is deeply troubling given what we now know from the Eaton Fire. Data reported by both EFRU and Caltech clearly shows that contamination damage did not stop at the burn scar. Dr. François Tissot of Caltech has stated that their study identified fire-related contamination traveling as far as seven miles. Any framework that narrows recovery based on proximity to the fire perimeter ignores the actual behavior of contamination in a wildland-urban interface fire.
The report also recommends considering codification of proposals from CDI’s Smoke Claims and Remediation Task Force to establish statewide standards for smoke remediation, certification requirements for testing and remediation professionals, and an “impartial” definition of an impact zone or ash perimeter for smoke damage claims. This appears on page 75 of the PDF, listed as page 69 in the document, under Option 2.1.4: Solve for Under Insurance.
That is not an abstract issue. AB 1795 grew out of CDI’s Smoke Claims and Remediation Task Force, and EFRU has already identified serious problems with several of its provisions. Codifying AB 1795 would be contrary to a safe recovery for communities affected by a wildland-urban interface fire because it does not require comprehensive, science-based contamination testing before and after remediation and fails to include a meaningful presumption of causation when contamination is found after a fire. By relying on vague “industry standards” and allowing cleanup decisions without identifying specific toxic contaminants, the bill permits remediation that may look complete without actually making a home safe. It also risks excluding impacted properties through perimeter-based concepts, even though wildfire contamination can travel miles beyond the burn scar. Without clear health-based clearance standards, insurers can treat homes as habitable without objective proof that contamination has been properly addressed. The result is a framework that favors procedural compliance over verified safety and makes it harder for policyholders and communities to secure a full and health-protective recovery.
Just as striking is what the report does not say. Its appendix defines conflagration, urban conflagration, and wildland-urban interface, yet nowhere in the document do the terms contamination or chemical damage appear. Although the report repeatedly refers to mitigation programs, guidance, and incentives, it fails to confront one of the most important realities of a wildland-urban interface fire: a house may still be standing, but contamination from burned structures throughout the surrounding community can make that home unsafe and uninhabitable.
If wildfire recovery policy is built without accounting for contamination, then it is not grounded in the real conditions survivors are facing. EFRU will continue reviewing the CEA report and identifying recommendations that conflict with the contamination data and recovery realities our community has documented.
Review the CEA recommendations on utility-caused fire recovery and its impacts on residents here.