Continued Backlash Against Utility Liability Protections After the Eaton Fire
The CA Post and LA Times both report growing criticism of efforts to reduce utility liability for wildfire losses. The CA Post says opponents of Gov. Newsom’s proposal—including fire survivors, insurers, local governments, attorneys, and consumer advocates—warn it could shift costs away from utilities and onto survivors, taxpayers, and insurance customers while limiting compensation for victims. EFSN’s leader Joy Chen called the proposal a multibillion-dollar utility bailout and warned that narrow eligibility zones could exclude people with serious smoke contamination. The LA Times published letters making a similar case from the survivor perspective. Eaton Fire survivor Jesse Albert described losing his home, receiving an insurance estimate far below rebuilding costs, and facing a difficult claims process, arguing that limiting SCE’s liability would further harm survivors. A second letter criticized utility threats to protect shareholders if lawmakers do not reduce wildfire liability, echoing Senator Ben Allen’s concern that utilities may be putting shareholder interests ahead of fire survivors and the public.