Why Edison Has Kept Key Fire Information Under Wraps
The Los Angeles Times article raises serious accountability concerns about Edison’s handling of the Eaton Fire investigation. Although Edison promised transparency, it is using attorney-client privilege and a court protective order to keep significant evidence out of public view while victims seek answers and compensation. The Times found similar protective orders in lawsuits involving the Thomas, Woolsey, Saddleridge, and Fairview fires, suggesting a broader pattern. Former CPUC President Loretta Lynch warned that these secrecy tactics can keep evidence of possible utility negligence from becoming public and may affect future proceedings over whether Edison acted prudently before the Eaton Fire. That finding carries major financial consequences: if regulators determine Edison acted negligently, the company could be forced to absorb costs that might otherwise be shifted through the state wildfire fund and ultimately borne by customers. The dispute therefore matters not only for the lawsuits, but for public safety, regulatory accountability, and whether residents and ratepayers will fully understand what caused the fire, whether Edison’s maintenance practices failed, and who should bear the costs.