But identifying the ignition source is only part of the story. What the county’s investigation fails to address is a far more pressing question — who in local government is truly responsible for keeping Altadena safe?

The findings don’t explain why so many residents say they received little to no fire preparedness information beforehand. They don’t clarify why emergency alerts failed to reach countless households before flames arrived, how public safety resources were deployed in those critical first 24 hours, or why response efforts were hampered by outdated protocols, murky lines of authority, thin staffing and communication systems that couldn’t talk to one another.

For most Californians, local governance is a partnership between city hall and the county. But Altadena has no city hall. Los Angeles County is its only government.

The community’s town council, though elected, holds no actual municipal power — it can only offer the county advice. Instead, the Board of Supervisors effectively functions as Altadena’s city council, and the supervisor representing the area serves as its “mayor” in name, if not in dedicated attention, given that the position also oversees dozens of other unincorporated communities.

This isn’t a matter of a tiny outpost slipping through bureaucratic cracks. Before the fire, Altadena was home to nearly 43,000 people spread across more than 8.4 square miles — larger in population than 47 of Los Angeles County’s incorporated cities, and bigger in land area than 53 of them.

Yet the responsibility for serving this substantial community is scattered among numerous county departments: the Fire Department, the Sheriff’s Department, the Office of Emergency Management, Public Works, the Chief Executive Office and the supervisor’s office. When responsibility is spread that thin, accountability becomes nearly impossible to pin down after a disaster. If there were failures in service, the public deserves to know which officials and agencies should own them.

I didn’t come to this issue only as a researcher. I lived through the fire alongside my neighbors. My family evacuated, and we suffered damage to both our home and our business. In the weeks that followed, I spent countless hours helping coordinate aid and listening to survivors describe what they experienced.

That experience led our firm to conduct a pro bono study — called ARISE — surveying 1,228 Altadena residents. The results were striking: roughly three out of four households said they received no fire preparedness outreach from the county in the year leading up to the disaster. Fewer than 8% of people who evacuated reported seeing firefighters during their escape.

These accounts, drawn directly from residents, paint a picture of a county government that felt distant and disconnected both before and during the emergency.

The county’s own after-action review acknowledged real problems — outdated and inconsistent policies, confusion over who had authority to act, staffing shortages, insufficient training, weak situational awareness and communication breakdowns. But that review wasn’t designed to assign blame or investigate wrongdoing. Its conclusion that there was “no single point of failure” should not be confused with a conclusion that government didn’t fail. For survivors trying to make decisions about rebuilding their lives, that distinction offers little comfort.

Accountability isn’t a competition with only one winner. The fact that Edison’s equipment sparked the fire doesn’t absolve the county of its responsibilities around preparedness, warning systems, evacuation procedures, emergency response and recovery efforts.

Holding Los Angeles County to account doesn’t mean ignoring the extreme weather conditions that fueled the fire, nor does it mean second-guessing split-second decisions made by first responders in the field. What it does mean is asking whether the county’s agencies were adequately prepared, properly led, and equipped to deliver the services Altadena residents pay for through their taxes — services that, unlike in incorporated cities, come without direct municipal representation.

Currently, the state auditor is reviewing how the Eaton and Palisades fires were prevented and handled, while the state attorney general is looking into possible civil rights violations. That’s a start, but it’s not enough.

The Legislature’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee should launch a broader investigation into how the county spent money and delivered services in Altadena before, during and after the fire. That inquiry should compare Altadena’s preparedness, warning systems, staffing levels, deployment strategies and emergency response to those of similarly sized incorporated cities facing comparable wildfire risk — drawing on spending records, dispatch logs, internal communications and firsthand testimony from residents. The goal should be determining whether Altadena’s unincorporated status left it more vulnerable, both in terms of service and in terms of who is held responsible when things go wrong.

Altadenans deserve more than a report. They deserve an apology and an honest reckoning from Los Angeles County — one that discloses everything the county is legally able to share, acknowledges plainly where its systems broke down, and lays out how the harm done will be addressed.

No resident of an unincorporated community like Altadena should ever again have to dig through organizational charts and hazard mitigation plans just to figure out who is supposed to be keeping them safe.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Did Altadena’s Unincorporated Status Contribute to Safety Failures During the Eaton Fire? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The agreement, announced Saturday, represents a retreat from the governor’s original vision. Rather than reducing what utilities owe insurance companies, local governments and fire victims after their equipment ignites a wildfire, the final package focuses on more targeted reforms — barring private equity firms from investing in wildfire claims and stripping bonuses from utility executives in years when their companies’ equipment causes a fatal fire.

For Inland Empire and Southern California residents who have watched wildfire costs and insurance premiums climb in recent years, the outcome marks a win for legislators who refused to soften penalties for utilities or cap what fire victims can recover. Opposition to Newsom’s original plan came from a coalition that included insurance companies, consumer watchdogs and survivors of the January 2025 Eaton Fire, which killed 19 people in Altadena after being traced to Southern California Edison equipment.

Under the new agreement, formalized in Senate Bill 492, the state will establish a “fast-pay” system to speed compensation for property losses and pain and suffering following utility-caused fires. Insurance claims would need to be evaluated within 60 days, with settlement offers following within 30 days after that — though survivors would still retain the option of pursuing lawsuits against utilities through the courts. The bill also directs the state to strengthen local wildfire prevention efforts and improve transparency around insurance availability in high-risk fire zones.

The deal caps weeks of tense, closed-door negotiations between the governor’s office and legislative leaders over how much financial responsibility utility companies should bear when their equipment sparks a fire. Newsom had sought to reduce what utilities pay to insurers, local governments, businesses and some wildfire survivors, arguing that ballooning costs threaten investor confidence in California’s three major investor-owned utilities — Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric. Higher borrowing costs for those companies, his administration warned, could ultimately translate into higher electric bills for ratepayers across the state.

The governor also framed his proposal as a way to ensure homeowners who lost everything get paid first, pointing to past wildfire cases in which investors funded lawsuits or bought up claims, injecting third parties into the payout process.

But SB 492 leaves most of those cost-shifting provisions out entirely. The state’s $18 billion wildfire fund — financed equally by utility customers and shareholders, and the same fund that would back the new fast-pay program — remains unchanged in structure. Supporters of Newsom’s original approach warn that another catastrophic fire season could drain the fund, leaving utilities exposed to massive costs and the risk of bankruptcy. Nine of California’s 20 most destructive wildfires on record have been linked to power lines or electrical equipment.

“This system needs full structural reform — not a partial one,” Newsom said in a statement Saturday. He called on lawmakers to revisit the issue next year to shore up the wildfire fund, stabilize electricity rates and prevent fire victims from becoming “unsecured creditors” in the event of a utility bankruptcy.

Sen. Josh Becker, a Menlo Park Democrat central to the talks, said he expects the debate over utility liability to resurface under a future governor. “What I heard very clearly, certainly from senators, from the Assembly and even from all the stakeholders, was that they’re willing to do that,” Becker said. “They’re willing to start getting around the table and looking at some of those structural issues. But that takes time. We ran out of time in this session.”

Sen. Ben Allen, who represents constituents affected by the Palisades Fire, said lawmakers stood firmly behind fire survivors even as the broader issue of electricity affordability remains unresolved. “Challenges with affordability of electricity remain,” Allen said. “That’s not going away.”

Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric declined to comment directly, instead referring inquiries to Wildfire Victims First, a utility-backed advocacy campaign whose goals mirrored the governor’s original wish list. Campaign spokesperson Nathan Click said the state still needs urgent structural changes “to ensure a fair recovery system.” A PG&E spokesperson said the company is reviewing the legislation and remains focused on speeding survivor recovery, improving safety and protecting customer rates. PG&E’s stock dropped Friday after reports surfaced that a deal without utility cost relief was likely.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat whose caucus resisted Newsom’s original proposals, said the final agreement “supports survivors in their recovery, curbs Wall Street practices that increase costs on consumers, and mitigates the destruction of these wildfires in the first place.” Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris of Irvine, who led Assembly negotiations, called the deal “an important step forward,” adding, “We held the line to protect the people who needed it most.”

One of the fiercest fights centered on subrogation — the legal mechanism allowing insurance companies to sue utilities to recover wildfire claim payouts. Newsom wanted to eliminate it, but lawmakers rejected that idea, fearing it would destabilize California’s already fragile insurance market, drive up premiums and push more insurers out of the state.

“This outcome keeps costs with the parties responsible for wildfires and helps protect the progress California is making in stabilizing its insurance market,” said Denni Ritter, vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

Even so, Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, who represents Eaton Fire survivors, said insurers shouldn’t escape scrutiny altogether. “We know that in many cases, insurance companies delayed and denied fire survivors’ claims and payments, delaying recovery,” Pérez said. “We need all industries to come to the table in a real way.”

Lawmakers also blocked Newsom’s proposal to cap non-economic damages for survivors — pain and suffering claims that Eaton Fire victims fought hard to protect throughout the negotiations.

Fire survivors and consumer advocates praised the Senate, and Limón in particular, for standing firm against the governor’s proposals. “In the face of extraordinary pressure from some of the most powerful interests in our state, they centered survivors and California families,” said Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network. Consumer Watchdog president Jamie Court described the negotiations as “an exercise in the democratic process,” noting that legislators refused to cave during private talks with the governor’s office.

Pérez credited the survivors themselves with steering the outcome. “The fire survivors have shaped this entire conversation,” she said. “They made a tremendous impact.”

Lawmakers are expected to vote on SB 492 next week.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmakers Reach Wildfire Deal That Sidelines Most of Newsom’s Key Proposals appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

According to legislative sources and internal memos obtained by CalMatters, members of both the Assembly and Senate are resisting proposals from the governor that would cap pain-and-suffering payouts to wildfire survivors, limit insurance companies’ ability to recoup what they pay homeowners after power line-sparked fires, and restrict how much local governments can recover for destroyed public infrastructure.

Those provisions are among the most contentious pieces of a sweeping wildfire policy package Newsom has been hammering out behind closed doors during the final legislative session of his governorship.

Neither Newsom’s office nor legislative leaders in the Senate and Assembly have released the actual bill language under negotiation, raising concerns that a complex overhaul of utility liability law could be passed with little public input before the session ends August 31.

Newsom’s office did not respond to questions about lawmakers’ resistance to parts of his plan. If a deal isn’t reached by Friday — the deadline for bills to be in print before a floor vote — the issue of expanding utility wildfire liability will be left for the next governor to tackle.

At a press conference last week, Newsom said he remains open to revisions but insisted some reforms must move forward this year.

“I feel very strongly that we need to make progress on this,” he said.

Aides to the governor say his goal is to speed up payouts to wildfire victims while shielding utilities from additional lawsuits that could rattle investor confidence and drive up electricity bills. But opponents — including local governments, wildfire survivors, consumer advocates and insurance companies — argue the plan lets utilities off the hook too easily.

Although any changes would apply only to future wildfires, the negotiations have angered a group of Eaton Fire survivors who traveled to Sacramento this week to protest the proposals. Earlier this month, state and Los Angeles fire investigators concluded that Southern California Edison was responsible for the January 2025 blaze, which ignited beneath a decades-old, out-of-service transmission tower. The fire killed 19 people and destroyed roughly 9,400 structures.

“My job is not to make sure we pad the profits of these companies’ shareholders,” said Senator Sasha Renee Perez, a Democrat representing Altadena, at a Tuesday rally with the group. “And we as a Legislature are certainly not going to negotiate with companies that are acting like terrorists.”

Where lawmakers diverge

Perez was referring to a report that executives from Pacific Gas & Electric and Edison have told Wall Street analysts the utilities plan to take unspecified action to protect shareholders if lawmakers fail to pass legislation this year reducing their financial exposure after wildfires.

Newsom and Democratic legislators agree on a proposal that would limit bonuses for utility executives following a catastrophic fire and increase fines for companies that violate safety rules. Sources close to the negotiations say a Senate proposal would go further, directing regulators to scrutinize utility spending more closely and consider capping rate increases in line with inflation.

Lawmakers also agree with Newsom on the need to strengthen community wildfire mitigation projects and use future insurance taxes to help fund home hardening efforts. There is broad agreement, too, on limiting attorney fees for lawyers representing fire victims and other plaintiffs in damage suits against utilities — though the Senate’s version would also cap fees for utility companies’ own attorneys.

Where the Senate and Assembly leadership break from Newsom is on eliminating subrogation — the right of insurance companies to recover costs from utilities or other parties found responsible for a fire — according to Assembly counterproposal memos and Senate sources familiar with the talks.

The insurance industry has been especially vocal in opposing that change, warning it would drive up insurers’ costs and, in turn, premiums for policyholders.

A massive new strain

State Senator Ben Allen, a Democrat running for insurance commissioner whose district includes Pacific Palisades — also devastated by a fire last January — said eliminating subrogation to address one problem, high electricity rates, risks creating another: even higher insurance premiums.

“I’m worried we’re going to create a massive new strain on the insurance system that could really call into question affordability for Californians,” Allen told CalMatters. He added that the move could deepen problems in the state’s already strained insurance market.

Lawmakers do agree with the governor on limiting the number of middlemen who can profit after a disaster, or at least capping how much they can earn. Legislators in both chambers want to prohibit insurers from selling their claims and subrogation rights to investment funds. The Senate’s version would still allow such sales with approval from the insurance commissioner — an option smaller insurers might need if they require quick cash to pay claims after a major fire.

Assembly leaders are also pushing back on Newsom’s proposal to reduce how much local governments can recover from utilities after a wildfire by limiting claims to the depreciated value of destroyed infrastructure rather than the full cost of rebuilding it. That proposal has drawn strong objections from the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities and groups representing school districts.

Facing pressure from the state’s influential firefighters’ union, Newsom appears to be softening his stance on that front.

On Monday, the union sent Newsom a letter expressing support for his broader plan while thanking him for adjustments meant to ensure local governments aren’t unfairly shortchanged. Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez did not respond to a request for further details on that provision.

A fraught proposal

Newsom’s office, lawmakers and the utility industry — through its “Wildfire Victims First” campaign, which includes relatively few actual victims — say their shared goal is ensuring survivors’ compensation takes precedence over other claims. But determining which survivors are most deserving of payment has proven to be one of the thorniest and most controversial pieces of Newsom’s plan.

The governor’s proposal would limit pain-and-suffering payments to survivors who lost a family member or suffered physical injuries. Other survivors could only seek non-economic damages if they were within the fire’s perimeter and were forced to flee, with payouts capped at $150,000 per person to avoid overwhelming the state’s wildfire fund, which is financed by both utility customers and shareholders.

In response to survivor objections, the Assembly’s version would expand eligibility for those non-economic damages without a cap, while the Senate’s plan would not limit eligibility but would raise the legal bar for survivors outside the fire perimeter to prove the blaze caused their trauma.

Still, a month of protests by Eaton Fire survivors opposed to Newsom’s plan shows how fraught the effort to rank victims has become. Their group, Every Fire Survivors Network, opposes any attempt to draw distinctions among fire victims.

“We are the real wildfire survivors,” several dozen protesters chanted outside the governor’s mansion Monday evening, where Newsom was hosting state lawmakers at an end-of-session reception.

Gayle Nicholls-Ali’s home in Altadena burned to the ground, and she’s now beginning to rebuild. Her son’s house around the corner survived the fire but sustained smoke damage. He and his wife have been living in a donated trailer on the property while they wait for their insurance company to approve claims so repairs can begin.

Under Newsom’s proposal, Nicholls-Ali isn’t sure whether her son would even qualify for non-economic damages, since he evacuated but didn’t suffer physical injury or lose his home.

“The mental stress alone has been enormous,” she said. Nicholls-Ali, a retired public school teacher, and her husband have lived in Altadena for more than 30 years. Her son had dreamed of buying a home in the same town.

“He wanted to live close to home,” she said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Time Running Out, California Lawmakers Reject Key Parts of Newsom’s Wildfire Prevention Plan appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The plan, introduced with only weeks left in the legislative session, would cap payouts to wildfire survivors, restrict insurance companies from recovering wildfire-related costs from utilities, and limit how much cities and counties could recoup for destroyed roads, water systems and other public infrastructure.

Newsom’s office defends the proposal as a way to speed up compensation for fire victims while easing the financial exposure utilities face after major wildfires — exposure that officials warn could otherwise translate into higher electricity bills for ratepayers.

But the response from Sacramento has been anything but warm. Local governments, wildfire survivors, consumer watchdogs and insurance representatives have all voiced strong objections, arguing the governor is rushing through sweeping changes without public bill language or adequate legislative debate.

Tensions boiled over after a report surfaced that utility executives were hinting at unspecified retaliatory steps to protect shareholder interests if lawmakers don’t act to shrink their wildfire liability. State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Pasadena Democrat, didn’t mince words in response, saying the Legislature has no intention of “negotiating with companies that want to act like terrorists.”

“My job is not to ensure that we’re increasing profits for shareholders for these companies,” Pérez said.

Despite the friction, there is some common ground. Lawmakers and the governor’s office agree on curbing bonuses for utility executives following destructive fires, increasing penalties for safety violations, and capping legal fees for attorneys representing wildfire victims.

Still, with the legislative session winding down, the broader fight over who bears the financial burden of California’s wildfire crisis — ratepayers, utility shareholders, insurers or taxpayers — remains far from settled.

In other Sacramento news this week, state lawmakers are racing against the clock to protect health coverage for transgender youth on Medi-Cal. Beginning Oct. 13, roughly 1,500 transgender and gender-nonconforming children could lose access to puberty blockers, hormone therapy and related care after the Trump administration barred federal reimbursement for gender-affirming treatment for minors.

To bridge the gap, legislators are pushing for $10 million in emergency funding intended to buy time while the state develops a new funding mechanism outside of federal Medicaid dollars. But LGBTQ advocacy groups say they feel blindsided — many believed the state budget passed in June already included protections for this population, only to discover it did not.

“It’s been very frustrating to see California say in many words that it’s supportive of trans people, and be so unprepared for something we all knew was about to happen,” said Arne Johnson, an organizer with Rainbow Families Action.

Meanwhile, CalMatters continues its ongoing investigation into California’s DUI laws, which reporters have found to be among the weakest in the nation, often allowing repeat offenders to remain behind the wheel with minimal consequences. The news organization is now gathering accounts from residents affected by crashes involving drivers who were not prosecuted, as part of a broader look at what happens after serious collisions.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s Eleventh-Hour Wildfire Proposal Runs Into Resistance at Capitol appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Her building didn’t burn, but thick smoke settled into it for days during the January 2025 firestorm. Before bringing her two children — one in college, one 12 years old — back inside, Barel wanted assurance the unit was truly safe. An independent test she paid for turned up toxic residue. Now she’s waiting on additional testing her landlord must conduct under a new California law.

Her landlord did have the apartment cleaned back in March, but Barel says the job was surface-level at best. She later found personal belongings tucked behind furniture and under the sofa — evidence, she said, that floors and walls were never properly scrubbed.

“The issue is that I have no control,” Barel said. “It really depends on the conversation between my landlord and their insurance company. If the landlord does the minimum, or if they don’t feel the need to fight or be insistent on certain things, then it’s not going to happen.”

Barel’s situation reflects a broader truth about California’s property insurance market: its stability — or lack thereof — doesn’t just affect homeowners. Renters, who make up roughly 44% of the state’s population, feel the ripple effects too, whether through rent hikes, housing shortages, or delays in rebuilding after disaster strikes.

This November, Californians will choose a new insurance commissioner, a position expected to play a significant role in both the recovery from last year’s devastating Los Angeles County fires and the broader health of the state’s insurance market.

Barel carries her own renters policy, which costs her $114 a year thanks to a multi-policy discount. So far, her insurer has paid out $6,000 in loss-of-use coverage — money meant to cover extra living expenses for displaced tenants — along with $2,100 toward damaged personal property. She recently completed a full inventory of her belongings, which she plans to submit toward her policy’s $35,000 cap for personal items.

“I was stuck for a long time,” she said. “It’s extremely overwhelming. There are a lot of personal things. These are our stories. This is our life.”

Her renters policy didn’t cover the cost of hiring an industrial hygienist to test her unit — a step she took on her own. That testing found elevated levels of lithium, chromium and other heavy metals, likely tied to smoke and ash from the fire. Because the blaze burned through the wildland-urban interface, the report noted, smoke in such fires often carries a more toxic mix of chemicals and particulates than typical structure fires. The hygienist recommended further testing and a deeper cleaning.

After enlisting help from the city of Pasadena to pressure her landlord, Barel is hopeful she’ll soon be able to leave the rental unit in Lincoln Heights where she’s been staying since the fire. FEMA has been covering that temporary housing, but that assistance is scheduled to run out in October, adding urgency to her situation. Throughout it all, she has continued paying rent on her original apartment.

“It’s not a possibility for me to move elsewhere,” she said. “We have rent control. It was perfect for the kids when we moved in. It had a courtyard; it was near the schools; everything.”

In nearby Altadena, which absorbed the worst of the Eaton Fire’s destruction, tenants made up 22% of households, and more than a third of the rental market operated under rent control, according to research from the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute. Researchers found that renter households in Altadena generally earned far less than homeowner households before the fire — and were more vulnerable to seeing what should have been temporary displacement turn into long-term housing instability.

Renters insurance

California doesn’t mandate renters insurance, though many landlords require tenants to carry their own policies.

Emily Rogan, senior program officer with the consumer advocacy group United Policyholders, urges renters to get coverage precisely because of situations like Barel’s.

“Renters insurance buys you a deep breath as you think about where to go next,” Rogan said, noting how many difficult decisions displaced renters face after a disaster.

She also pointed to a shifting political landscape around disaster aid. “In the current political climate, there’s a trend where FEMA declarations are not as frequent as they used to be,” she said — meaning less federal assistance may be available when disaster strikes.

With inflation driving up the cost of replacing nearly everything, Rogan said renters insurance remains valuable “even if you fall under the camp of ‘Oh, my stuff’s not worth much.'”

Insurance’s ripple effects on rent and housing supply

Interviews with an insurance broker, an affordable-housing operator and several landlords revealed a mixed and often frustrating picture of California’s insurance market, which continues to strain under wildfire risk, rising litigation costs and insurers pulling back from writing new commercial policies.

Robert Guerrero, an insurance broker based in Madera County, said Mercury Insurance has resumed offering new policies in several counties — though not in the areas where his clients are located. Some property owners are turning to non-admitted carriers, insurers not licensed or backed by the state, which means policyholders bear more risk if the company fails. The California Department of Insurance maintains a public list of these so-called surplus-line insurers, and customers who choose to buy from one must sign a disclosure acknowledging the added risk.

“It’s still very dicey out there,” said Guerrero, whose firm handles homeowner, auto, commercial and life insurance policies.

Mike Placido, who owns four rental units in San Gabriel and a duplex in Alhambra, spoke with CalMatters two years ago about how rising insurance costs were squeezing landlords and tenants alike. Since then, he said, premium increases have slowed to a more manageable pace.

“It’s not causing me to raise rents as dramatically as I did before,” Placido said. “I guess the market has stabilized.”

He still carries a couple of policies through State Farm, but relies on non-admitted carriers for the rest — a situation that leaves him uneasy.

“There’s some aspect of safety when you’re going with a big company,” he said. “You don’t know if a smaller insurance company will be around long term.”

Uwe Karbenk, co-owner of a 33-unit apartment complex in San Bernardino, said his outlook hasn’t improved much. His premiums dipped slightly last year but have since climbed back to where they were two years ago. He raised rents in 2024, held them steady in 2025, and plans another increase this year.

Karbenk said he’s invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in electrical upgrades and a new roof for the building — improvements that, so far, haven’t translated into lower premiums.

For fire coverage specifically, he said insurers are scrutinizing properties far more closely. “They really check the building and they will write you up for stuff they don’t like. They call it recommendations, but it’s a stipulation. You need to do it, otherwise you risk cancellation of insurance.”

His takeaway: “Repairs are so much more expensive and replacement costs are so much higher. There’s no way around paying much more for insurance.”

Affordable housing developers are feeling similar pressure. Little Tokyo Service Center, a Los Angeles-based community development nonprofit that manages more than 1,000 affordable housing units across the region, has watched its insurance costs balloon in recent years.

Between 2023 and 2024, the organization’s annual insurance bill jumped from roughly $800,000 to $2.7 million, according to Erich Nakano, the group’s former executive director and current director of special projects. Deductibles that once ranged from $10,000 to $50,000 climbed past $100,000.

To cope, the organization has had to dip into its financial reserves, since raising rents significantly isn’t an option for affordable housing tenants. Last year, Little Tokyo Service Center joined an insurance captive — a self-insurance pool made up of roughly 40 organizations nationwide, including for-profit real estate firms, banding together to share risk.

“It’s an existential crisis,” Nakano said. “We can’t sustain these levels of insurance premiums.”

For the record: Barel currently resides in Lincoln Heights, not Altadena.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Renters and Landlords: Why Insurance Coverage Matters More Than Ever in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A long-awaited report released Tuesday determined that the January 2025 blaze, which tore through Altadena and other communities in the San Gabriel Mountain foothills, was caused by an electrical arc from a Southern California Edison transmission tower. The fire burned more than 14,000 acres, destroyed upwards of 9,000 homes and structures, and killed at least 19 people. Firefighters battled the flames for nearly a month before it was fully contained.

The Los Angeles County Fire Department, working alongside Cal Fire, spent 18 months examining the evidence with electrical and metallurgical experts before reaching its conclusion. Investigators pointed specifically to arcing events on an out-of-service Edison tower as the ignition source.

The timing of that announcement collided head-on with a separate effort unfolding in Sacramento. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has been pressing lawmakers to scale back the financial liability that investor-owned utilities face when their equipment starts a wildfire — a request now under intense scrutiny given the fresh findings on the Eaton Fire’s origin.

The confirmation that Edison equipment triggered the disaster has reignited a now-familiar cycle of blame, litigation and insurance disputes. Insurance companies that have paid out claims to fire victims are looking to recover those costs from the utility and its shareholders, while Edison and its allies push back against efforts to hold it fully accountable.

This pattern isn’t new. A similar fight played out after PG&E equipment was blamed for the 2018 Camp Fire, which destroyed the town of Paradise in Butte County. That disaster, like the Eaton Fire, set off years of legal battles over how to divide the cost of destruction among utilities, insurers and ratepayers.

The core problem is that California’s major utilities — Edison, PG&E and San Diego Gas and Electric — aren’t ordinary corporations. They’re government-regulated monopolies that provide essential services to millions of Californians, and the state has a vested interest in keeping them financially solvent enough to operate in capital markets. In practice, that means whatever costs the utilities absorb from wildfire liability tend to get passed along to ratepayers, who already pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country.

That dynamic is central to the current standoff in Sacramento. Newsom, who has only a few months left in office, wants lawmakers to limit compensation fire victims can seek for pain and suffering, restrict insurers’ ability to recoup wildfire payouts from utilities, and cap attorney fees in wildfire litigation.

Insurance companies, trial lawyers and advocacy groups representing fire survivors have mounted a public campaign against those proposals, while the utilities are pushing hard in favor of them — setting up a familiar Capitol standoff between deep-pocketed interests.

The larger issue is that traditional approaches to assigning blame and spreading financial risk break down when the utility in question is a state-sanctioned monopoly. Every dollar of liability ultimately has to come from somewhere, whether that’s utility shareholders, insurance companies or, most often, ratepayers themselves.

A broader solution may be needed — something along the lines of a statewide insurance mechanism that covers not just wildfires but other large-scale disasters California faces, including earthquakes. Such a system could build on the existing wildfire fund, created after the Northern California fires, which is currently financed jointly by the three major utilities and their customers.

Continuing to address each fire disaster individually, through piecemeal legislative fixes and courtroom battles, hasn’t solved the underlying problem. As wildfires grow more frequent and more destructive across the state, California may need a far more comprehensive strategy than the reactive approach it has relied on so far.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Who Pays When Power Lines Spark Wildfires? California Faces a Costly Dilemma appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The agreements, reached in both cities within roughly a year of the fires, mark a reversal for local officials who had moved to block a state housing law from applying in fire-ravaged neighborhoods. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass had signed executive orders last summer allowing cities and counties to suspend the law, known as Senate Bill 9, in areas classified as “very high” fire hazard zones within the Eaton and Palisades burn areas.

SB 9, passed by state lawmakers in 2021, allows homeowners to split single-family lots and construct duplexes on each half, effectively opening the door to as many as four housing units where zoning once permitted just one home.

The pro-development legal group YIMBY Law challenged the executive orders in court, naming the governor, the mayor, and four local jurisdictions that had opted to block the law. The organization argued that none of them had the legal authority to override legislation approved by the state.

Under the newly finalized settlements, both Malibu and Pasadena agreed to rescind their local ordinances blocking duplex development and to process all SB 9 applications, including those already filed. Pasadena’s City Council approved the change unanimously on July 20. Malibu has until Sept. 29 to formally repeal its restriction.

“For people who are living, or hoping to live, or hoping to move back to Malibu and Pasadena, SB 9 is back,” said Sonja Trauss, executive director of YIMBY Law.

The settlements arrive amid ongoing tension between fire survivors and housing advocates over how devastated neighborhoods should be rebuilt. Many residents who lost homes in the Eaton and Palisades fires have opposed denser rebuilding, citing worries over evacuation routes, traffic congestion and changes to the character of their communities. Among the most outspoken opponents was reality TV personality Spencer Pratt, who leaned into public frustration over the state and local wildfire response during an unsuccessful bid for Los Angeles mayor.

Supporters of the law counter that it gives fire victims greater financial flexibility to rebuild at a time when construction costs are soaring and insurance payouts have often fallen short or been delayed.

The vast majority of the more than 16,000 structures lost in the two fires were located in the city of Los Angeles and in unincorporated Altadena, meaning the settlements with Malibu and Pasadena affect a smaller share of fire-damaged properties. Still, Trauss said the outcome sends an important signal about the strength of the law.

“The writing is on the wall,” she said. “It’s a good signal when parties are settling because it indicates the respondents’ feelings about how defendable their side is.”

The legal fight is far from over. Los Angeles County, the city of Los Angeles, Newsom and Bass remain defendants in the ongoing lawsuit.

At the same time, state lawmakers are weighing a related measure. State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democrat representing Altadena, introduced legislation this summer that would temporarily exempt the unincorporated community from SB 9 and another housing law, reflecting the continued debate over how best to balance rebuilding needs with local concerns in fire-affected areas.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Two Fire-Ravaged LA Cities Reach Settlement in Housing Density Lawsuit appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The controversy centers on advertisements that have been circulating statewide, warning that “home insurance rates skyrocket” and that “the FAIR Plan is broken.” The ads encourage Californians to contact their state representatives and demand a fix to the state’s “wildfire problem.” But those behind the campaign, survivors say, aren’t telling the whole story.

With the Legislature set to reconvene next week for the final weeks of its session, Newsom’s office has confirmed it has been in talks with lawmakers about addressing wildfire recovery costs and the state’s growing catastrophic risk. However, no legislative language has been made public, and a spokesperson for the governor declined to confirm or deny specific details alleged by fire survivor groups and Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit focused on insurance issues.

Those groups claim the still-unseen legislation could limit compensation for pain and suffering endured by fire victims, eliminate insurance companies’ ability to recover wildfire-related costs from utilities, and cap attorney fees — making it harder for survivors to find legal representation.

Every Fire Survivors Network, formed by people who lost homes in last year’s devastating Eaton Fire in Altadena, along with Consumer Watchdog and several insurance industry representatives, allege the proposal would effectively transfer financial responsibility from utility companies onto everyday insurance customers. They’re warning against what’s known in Sacramento as a “gut-and-amend” — a legislative maneuver in which lawmakers strip the content of an existing bill and replace it with new, often fast-tracked, provisions late in the session.

The suspected legislative package appears to align closely with the goals of Wildfire Survivors First, an advocacy campaign funded by utility companies. Despite the name, the campaign’s list of more than 200 supporting organizations does not include a single fire survivor group.

“Californians deserve a government that works in the open, not behind closed doors,” Joy Chen, a leader with Every Fire Survivors Network, said during a press conference last week. She called on Newsom to “choose democracy over corporate special interests.”

In an open letter to the governor, Chen outlined what she describes as a pattern of the state helping utilities offload wildfire responsibility over the years. California’s three largest utilities — Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric — wield enormous influence in Sacramento, operating under a web of affiliated entities and employing hundreds of lobbyists. According to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy Database, the utilities have donated more than $1.2 million to sitting lawmakers so far in the 2025-26 legislative session.

Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez said discussions between the governor’s office and lawmakers stem from an April report by the California Earthquake Authority, produced under Senate Bill 254, which examined how California should distribute the financial burden of natural disasters.

That same bill — rewritten so hastily last year that lawmakers had to extend the legislative session to pass it — already allows utilities to pass additional wildfire costs onto ratepayers if expenses exceed the state’s $21 billion wildfire fund, created in 2019 with Newsom’s backing. Utilities and ratepayers each covered half of that fund. Survivors of the Eaton Fire have since sued Edison, alleging negligence contributed to the blaze, and experts say the resulting claims could exceed what remains in the fund.

Among the April report’s recommendations: raising the monthly surcharge utility customers pay into the wildfire fund from $2.50 to $11.

Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Wildfire Survivors First, said the campaign supports quickly implementing many of the report’s findings, arguing that “payouts to financial middlemen — like trial attorneys, hedge funds and insurance companies — are often paid out before wildfire victims receive a single dollar for rebuilding.”

Click did not respond when asked why no fire survivor organizations appear among the campaign’s more than 200 supporters, a list dominated largely by chambers of commerce and business associations. CalMatters reached out to nearly a dozen of those groups; most did not respond or declined interview requests.

One organization that did speak out, After the Fire — a national nonprofit supporting communities recovering from major wildfires — said it asked to be removed from the coalition’s list once it learned no survivor groups were involved.

“I’m from Sonoma. I’m a national advocate for fire victims. I’m definitely not on their side,” said Jennifer Gray Thompson, the group’s chief executive. She said former state Sen. Bill Dodd had personally reached out asking her organization to back the campaign. Dodd did not respond to requests for comment.

The Bay Area Council, which counts PG&E among its members, defended its involvement, saying it supports “sensible policies and investments that reduce wildfire risk and increase community wildfire resilience” while balancing the needs of businesses, consumers and residents.

A Consumer Watchdog review of required financial disclosures found that about 66% of the nongovernmental groups listed as campaign supporters have received utility-funded contributions, grants or sponsorships totaling roughly $7.3 million between 2023 and 2025. Click dismissed Consumer Watchdog as “a shadow lobby firm for trial attorneys,” adding that the group’s criticism was unsurprising given what he called its interest in protecting attorney payouts over victims.

Representatives for PG&E, Edison and SDG&E each directed inquiries to the Wildfire Survivors First campaign.

State Sen. Ben Allen, a Los Angeles-area Democrat whose district includes Palisades Fire survivors, attended Friday’s press conference and said any solution must hold “responsible parties accountable.” Allen, who chairs the Senate’s energy and utilities committee and is running for state insurance commissioner, was unavailable for a detailed interview but issued a statement saying he would carefully scrutinize any proposal to ensure costs aren’t simply shifted among consumers without addressing the underlying problem.

State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, who represents Eaton Fire survivors in Altadena, said she would strongly oppose any effort to cap non-economic damages for victims. “I have a friend who lost his sister in the fire. How do you put a price tag on losing your sibling?” she said. Pérez added that she remains frustrated by how SB 254 was transformed in the final days of last year’s session from a bill meant to curb utility profits into one that instead benefited them. “That’s not the way government should work,” she said.

Several other legislative offices — including those of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, who chairs the insurance committee, and Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, who leads the utilities and energy committee — did not respond to requests for comment. Spokespeople for Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón and Sen. Josh Becker sent statements echoing Newsom’s office, saying the current system “is unsustainable and not working for fire survivors, utility customers, or insurance policyholders.”

Insurance industry representatives, meanwhile, argue that stripping their ability to recover wildfire costs from utilities — a practice known as subrogation — would inevitably drive up premiums for everyday Californians.

“We don’t think it’s fair to make insurance policyholders pay more to bail out utility shareholders,” said Denni Ritter, a vice president with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. She also disputed claims that insurers typically wait to recover funds from utilities before paying policyholders, saying, “It’s not like AAA goes, ‘OK, we’ll pay you once we’ve recovered from the utilities.’”

Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents many of the state’s largest insurers, said this is not the first time utilities have sought to reduce their wildfire liability — but said that in the past, such efforts involved direct dialogue with insurers. This time, he said, that communication has been absent.

“We’re trying to understand why they’re talking about the insurance market,” Frazier said. “We can’t get a clear answer about what they have in mind.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Fire Survivors Say Newsom’s New Plan Would Again Ease Utilities’ Wildfire Liability Costs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

I am one of those survivors. I lead Every Fire Survivor’s Network, which represents more than 10,000 people affected by California wildfires. This year, a group calling itself Wildfire Victims First has been sending mailers and running advertisements across the state, positioning itself as a voice for people like me. It is not. That organization is funded by California’s three for-profit electric monopolies, according to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, and it does not speak for the families who actually lost their homes, businesses and loved ones.

The real numbers tell a different story than the one being marketed to Californians. Eighteen months after the Eaton Fire, roughly two-thirds of survivors remain displaced from their homes. Retirement accounts have been emptied. Credit cards are maxed out. More than half of us are on the verge of losing whatever temporary housing we’ve managed to secure.

Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom is reportedly negotiating another utility relief package behind closed doors, ahead of the Legislature’s return in August. Survivors have seen this playbook before, and we know how it typically ends.

Last September, in the final 48 hours of the legislative session, Newsom and legislative leaders gutted Senate Bill 254 — originally intended to protect wildfire survivors — and replaced it with a 231-page measure that instead shielded California’s electric utilities. The rewrite came so late that lawmakers had to extend the session just to satisfy the state’s constitutional requirement for a 72-hour public review period. Some legislators later admitted they cast votes without fully understanding what was in the bill. One observer described the maneuver to the Los Angeles Times as “effectively a bailout.”

That is not how democratic government is supposed to function.

State regulators justified the move by warning that utilities faced financial collapse without intervention. The California Public Utilities Commission subsequently approved a $1.1 billion rate increase for Southern California Edison, along with nearly $1 billion in retroactive charges — paid for by California ratepayers to the very utility whose equipment investigators have identified as the probable cause of the Eaton Fire.

Two months later, Edison raised its shareholder dividend for the 22nd consecutive year, bringing the total payout to nearly $1.3 billion. The company’s three largest institutional shareholders are BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. Thanks in part to the rate increases, Edison’s profits more than tripled in 2025, climbing from $1.3 billion to $4.5 billion. CEO Pedro Pizarro’s compensation rose 20% to $16.5 million.

This wasn’t a rescue from bankruptcy. It was a transfer of wealth from working Californians to Wall Street investors — occurring the same year the Eaton Fire claimed 19 lives and upended the futures of tens of thousands of residents across the San Gabriel Valley and beyond.

California lawmakers and the governor now face a defining choice: stand with the families who lost everything, or continue shielding the corporations whose equipment has been linked to some of the state’s deadliest fires.

A national coalition has launched a campaign, DearNewsom.org, backed by organizations including the NAACP, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network — representing 70 immigrant rights groups — and Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization with more than a million members. NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson said the letter urges the governor to choose democracy over corporate influence, calling on him to “stand with survivors, reject policies that shield corporate misconduct and ensure California leads the nation by putting people before powerful interests.”

The message is straightforward: no more utility bailouts negotiated in private before survivors have been made whole.

If Newsom believes his proposals genuinely serve California’s interests, he should make that case publicly, through the normal legislative process — not through last-minute language inserted days before lawmakers adjourn. California has an opportunity to set a national example of accountability, rather than demonstrate what happens when corporate influence overrides the democratic process.

The principle at stake is one most of us learned as children, and one that underpins our civil justice system: if you break it, you fix it. Not: you break it, your victims lose everything, and the shareholders and executives responsible walk away wealthier than before.

If the outcome of repeated catastrophic wildfires continues to be record corporate profits, record executive pay and record shareholder dividends, then that is precisely the outcome this system will keep delivering.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Keeps Rewarding Utilities Even After Catastrophic Wildfires appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

After talking to residents about the plan it released in July, Edison said it decided to expand the area of homes that are eligible for compensation for smoke damage.

“Expanding the eligibility area is one of the most significant updates made as a result of feedback,” said Pedro Pizarro, the chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company. “The number of qualified properties nearly doubled for those with damage from smoke, soot or ash.”

The utility also increased the amount of compensation it is offering for some victims. For example, each child in a family that lost its home will be eligible to receive $75,000 for pain and suffering, up from $50,000 in the initial plan.

To receive payments under the utility’s Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program, families must agree to drop any lawsuits they filed against the utility for the Jan. 7 fire.

The program also is open to businesses that lost revenues and renters who lost property. And it covers those who suffered physical injuries or had family members who died.

Edison is launching the victim compensation program even though government fire investigators have not released their report on the cause of the fire. The inferno swept through Altadena, destroying 9,400 homes and other structures and killing 19 people.

Videos captured the fire igniting under a century-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon that Edison had not used since 1971, and Pizarro has said a leading theory is that the line somehow re-energized and ignited the blaze. Edison said in a federal securities filing this week that “absent additional evidence, SCE believes that it is likely that its equipment could be found to have been associated with the ignition.”

In documents detailing its final compensation plan, the utility included the example of a family of four with a 1,500-square-foot home that was destroyed. The family would receive $900,000 to rebuild, $360,000 for personal property, $140,000 for loss of use and $380,000 for pain and suffering. It also would receive a $200,000 “direct claim premium” for agreeing to settle outside of court.

That total of $1,980,000 is then reduced by the family’s $1 million of insurance coverage, according to the company’s example.

On Thursday, state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena) sent a letter to Edison saying she was concerned about how the utility was requiring victims to waive their future legal rights in order to get compensation. And she called on Edison to provide immediate housing assistance to fire victims.

“Having acknowledged its potential role in starting the Eaton Fire, Edison must do everything within its power to prioritize the needs of survivors and make this commitment a core part of its corporate duty,” she wrote to Pizarro. “This means ensuring fire victims can recover and rebuild their lives with the support they are owed.”

Edison expects to be reimbursed for most or all of the payments it makes to victims by a $21-billion state wildfire fund that Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers created in 2019 to shield utilities from bankruptcy. Administrators of the wildfire fund told members of the state Catastrophe Response Council this week that they expect Eaton fire claims “to be in the tens of billions of dollars.”

In September, Newsom signed a bill that will bolster the money available by another $18 billion for future wildfires. Under that bill, Edison is allowed to raise electric rates for any Eaton fire costs that exceed the original $21-billion fund.

Some Eaton fire survivors told the council, which oversees the wildfire fund, that Edison’s program fails to fully cover damages suffered by victims. Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, recently sent the council a report detailing where her group found shortfalls. For example, Chen said, Edison is deducting a homeowner’s full insurance coverage from the compensation amounts even if the insurer has reimbursed the family for only part of that amount.

“Nine months after Edison’s negligence shattered our lives, the toll is clear,” the group’s report states. “Many have drained retirement savings, maxed out credit cards, or watched marriages and health deteriorate under the strain. “

“You destroyed our homes, lives and community,” the report says of Edison. “Fix what you broke. “

Chen’s group joined with Perez in calling for Edison to provide emergency housing assistance for victims.

Edison said its program is designed “to help the community recover and rebuild faster.” The utility said a report by RAND, the non-profit research group it hired to assess the compensation plan, determined the payment amounts “used modern statistical methods and in our judgment were thoughtfully done and well executed.”

Edison said victims can start filing for claims now and that it expects to get back to them with an offer within 90 days.

The post Edison increases compensation for Eaton fire victims, but some say it’s not enough appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.