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.

Southern California Edison — the utility that owns the decommissioned power line that may have started the fire — made a sweeping offer on Wednesday to pay families affected by the blaze hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation.

The Eaton fire ravaged Altadena, an idyllic foothill community northeast of downtown Los Angeles, killing 19 people, destroying thousands of homes and damaging thousands more. Although state fire investigators have not officially determined the cause, evidence suggests that the utility’s equipment played a key role.

The company on Wednesday launched its program to compensate victims for rebuilding costs, lost rental income, physical injuries and other economic damages. Altadena residents are also eligible for other payouts for “non-economic losses,” such as pain and suffering and emotional distress, depending on their circumstances. Each adult resident of a house that burned down, for instance, is eligible to receive $115,000 and each child is eligible for $75,000. A surviving spouse of someone who died in the fire is eligible for $2 million.

Survivors have until Nov. 30, 2026, to decide whether to take the utility up on its offer — and forfeit the right to sue — or to hold out for a legal settlement that could be larger but take years to be resolved.

It is a calculation that more Californians could face in the future, as climate change causes utility-sparked wildfires to burn hotter and more quickly out of control.

For each family, the equation is different.

“There have been a lot of people, like lawyers, who are like, ‘I’m going to help you take Edison for everything you can get, like, let’s drag them through the mud,’” said Lauren Randolph, 40, whose home was destroyed in the blaze. “But there’s just so many things to consider, once this is in its final form: Do we take this to get the money sooner? Or do we wait to try to get more? But how much more, in theory, would we actually get, and is that actually meaningful and worth it?”

Ms. Randolph and her husband bought their house in West Altadena in 2018, while she was pregnant with her older daughter, and they poured some $150,000 and countless hours into renovating it.

Then, on the evening of Jan. 7, they debated for hours whether to leave, although they hadn’t been ordered to evacuate.

They eventually went to Ms. Randolph’s mother’s house. When the couple returned, only their side gate was left standing. They only recognized it because they had painted it in rainbow colors for their daughter’s fifth birthday.

For months, whether to take the utility’s money has been a subject of conversation at coffee shops, in WhatsApp groups and among lawyers and their clients.

Southern California Edison leaders announced in July that they were planning a program to compensate wildfire survivors. They said they had enlisted the help of Kenneth R. Feinberg and Camille S. Biros, who were known for designing compensation programs for people directly affected by the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion. This is, Ms. Biros said later, their first time working on a program for survivors of a wildfire.

Pacific Gas & Electric, the state’s biggest utility, has paid out billions through similar settlements. A fund to compensate victims of wildfires sparked by its equipment, including the 2018 Camp fire, has paid out $13.7 billion so far, according to a website that tracks its progress.

No compensation fund has been set up for the January Palisades fire, which investigators have not linked to any utility.

In late September, Southern California Edison company hosted community meetings online and in Altadena to gather feedback on its plans. On a Monday night, fire survivors who had been scattered across the region packed into a park gymnasium to hear from company representatives and voice their concerns. Many older survivors brought their adult children or other relatives.

Under the plan, victims would be paid according to the level of damage their home had sustained: destroyed, partially destroyed or damaged by smoke. Survivors could pick from two options: A fast pay option, where they would receive an offer within 90 days of submitting their claim, but with a less detailed review, or a slower option, where they would have to wait for a deeper examination of their losses that could take up to nine months. A fast pay offer would not be reduced by insurance claims, but a detailed review offer would be offset by insurance coverage. Every offer for someone represented by a lawyer would include an extra 10 percent to help cover attorney’s fees.

Utility officials emphasized that the program was voluntary: Survivors could file claims and assess their offer, with no obligation to take it.

People attending the meeting peppered company representatives with questions, which were transcribed in marker on giant sheets of paper: What about a collection of sports memorabilia that was lost? Would West Altadena residents be paid more because of the lack of warning about the fire? What if family members disagreed about whether they wanted to accept the settlement or continue with a lawsuit? The company didn’t have immediate answers.

Some of the survivors said later that they were wary about giving too many details of their cases to the utility; their lawyers had warned them that any information they provided at the meetings could be used against them.

On Wednesday, Southern California Edison released the final details of the program and opened the claims process.

Pedro J. Pizarro, the president and chief executive of Southern California Edison’s parent company, Edison International, said that changes to the initial proposal had been made in response to feedback, including expanding the number of people who could apply for the program and eliminating some documentation requirements.

The total number of eligible parties, which includes households and businesses, is about 18,000, he said.

Company executives have said that the compensation program is not an admission of guilt, and they have not been held liable in court for the fire.

Nevertheless, Mr. Pizarro said that the company has recognized there is “concerning circumstantial evidence” that its equipment sparked the fire, and that “there isn’t another probable cause.” He has warned investors that the company is likely to face losses as a result. Already, the utility has been sued many times over the fire.

“Every month that goes by, you might have more displacement for people who have been impacted, more escalation in construction costs — it just keeps adding up for the victims, as well as for the company,” he said. “For most victims, a standardized program can lead to a fair outcome in very short order, and it really is about having a sense of urgency to get that cash flowing into the community.”

Still, some lawyers and advocates for survivors said that they saw the program as a disingenuous attempt by Southern California Edison to reduce its liability. They said the company would rather boost profits for its executives and shareholders than spend money to mitigate the risk of its equipment starting fires in the first place.

And the size of the compensation offers has signaled to some lawyers that the company knows it could be forced to pay much more in court.

“In almost every case, it’s pennies on the dollar of what we likely — though there’s not certainty — we’ll be able to recover otherwise,” said Kipp Mueller, a lawyer who is representing fire victims.

Angela Giacchetti, one of Mr. Mueller’s clients, initially believed her family had been lucky: Their house was one of few in their neighborhood that was left standing after the Eaton fire roared through.

But she said she quickly learned that dealing with smoke damage is its own nightmare. The roof of the house, built in the 1940s, needed to be replaced. Initial attempts to clean the house left behind a lingering stench. Ms. Giacchetti, 37, her husband and her now 18-month-old son have moved every few weeks or months, as insurance payments have slowed.

She said the cost of fixing her home has been multiple times what Southern California Edison would likely offer her through the program. And the fact that the non-economic damage payments for children were less than for adults was an insult, she said.

“It was like a second grief,” she said. “You could see the dollar amounts these corporations put on our health and well-being.”

Zella Knight, whose family left Mississippi for West Altadena in the Jim Crow era, when she was a young child, said she feared that no amount of compensation would preserve a once thriving Black community whose vulnerable elders were displaced by the fire. Many of those people, she said, may not be able to afford to wait for a possible larger payout down the line, unlike wealthier recent arrivals.

Ms. Knight, 62, said her intellectually disabled brother had continued living in their childhood home, after their parents died. The house was destroyed in the fire, disrupting his routines and care. He died in August. Now, she and her other siblings are deciding whether to sell the property.

“We have lost our extended family, we’ve lost our comfort zones, we’ve lost those mechanisms that build upon generational wealth,” she said. “Nothing can really compensate for that.”

But, she said, the settlements could be a start.

The post L.A. Fire Victims Face a Choice: Take a Settlement or Hold Out for More appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles announced the lawsuits Thursday morning in response to the Eaton Fire in January, which burned through Altadena and parts of Pasadena, and the Fairview Fire in 2022, which started in Hemet.

Acting United States Attorney Bill Essayli said the lawsuits allege a “troubling pattern of negligence” that resulted in loss of life and property.

“Edison is responsible, but for Edison’s negligence, these fires would not have started,” Essayli said during a news conference.

The lawsuits seek more than $40 million in damages for the Eaton Fire and approximately $37 million for the Fairview Fire. Those numbers represent the damage and costs incurred by the federal government, according to the U.S Attorney’s Office.

Essayli said he wants SoCal Edison to bear the burden of the cost of the destruction, not California ratepayers.

Diane Castro, a SoCal Edison spokesperson, told LAist the company is reviewing the lawsuits and will respond through “appropriate legal channels.”

“Our thoughts are with the community impacted by the Fairview Fire,” she said. “We continue our work to reduce the likelihood of our equipment starting a wildfire. SCE is committed to wildfire mitigation through grid hardening, situational awareness, and enhanced operational practices.”

For the Eaton Fire, Castro said it was heartbreaking for many who live and work in the Los Angeles area.

How we got here

The Eaton Fire, which ignited Jan. 7, burned nearly 8,000 acres in the Angeles National Forest, killed 19 people and destroyed nearly 10,000 structures — many of them homes.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said the fire started because of “faulty power infrastructure owned, maintained, and operated” by Southern California Edison.

The lawsuit alleges that the utility failed to properly maintain the power lines in the area.

An investigation to determine an official cause of ignition remains ongoing. However, Essayli said his office believes the evidence is clear that SoCal Edison was at fault.

“We want Edison to change the way it does business,” Essayli said. “It does not maintain its infrastructure in a way to prevent fires. We do not want another fire igniting.”

Pasadena, Sierra Madre and Los Angeles County also previously filed separate lawsuits against SoCal Edison for its alleged role in the Eaton Fire.

The Fairview Fire started after a sagging power line “owned, maintained and operated by SoCal Edison” came into contact with a Frontier communications messenger cable on Sept. 5, 2022. That created sparks that ignited vegetation, prosecutors said.

The fire burned nearly 14,000 acres within the San Bernardino National Forest, the fire burned 44 structures, killed two people and injured three others — including two firefighters.

The post US prosecutors sue Southern California Edison over wildfires in LA County, Inland Empire appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Investigations into the cause of the fire are ongoing and have not concluded that Edison’s equipment sparked the blaze, Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said during the company’s first-quarter earnings call.

But Edison’s probe into the start of the fire has not revealed any other possible sources of ignition, Pizarro added.

“Absent additional evidence” and “in light of pending litigation, it is probable that Edison International and Southern California Edison will incur material losses in connection with the Eaton fire,” Pizarro said.

Edison has previously acknowledged that it could be responsible for the blaze and said earlier this month that a dormant power line might have been the cause.

But Tuesday’s comments are the clearest signal to date that the company is likely to sustain substantial losses from the devastating wildfire.

“It’s still very early days here and the liability is simply not estimable today,” Pizarro said. “I’m not sure when it may become estimable.”

The Eaton fire killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes and other structures. Early estimates put the cost of damages at $10 billion, but experts said that number would grow. The total estimated economic loss caused by the January wildfires has surpassed $250 billion.

Southern California Edison, based in Rosemead, is an investor-owned public utility that provides electricity to about 15 million people across a 50,000-square-mile area in Southern California. Along with the utility, which is one of the largest in the country, Edison International also owns an energy advisory company, Trio.

In all, Edison International employs more than 14,000 people and had a valuation of around $30 billion before January’s wildfires. The company’s valuation closed Tuesday at $22.6 billion.

If Edison has to cover the damages caused by the Eaton fire, the utility will be partially protected by an emergency fund that state lawmakers created in 2019 in the wake of earlier wildfires. The fund is designed to protect utility companies from bankruptcy in the event the utility is found responsible for a wildfire and has to make a large payout.

Video of flames at the base of an Edison transmission tower in Eaton Canyon the night the fire began raised suspicions that the utility’s equipment was at fault.

“Unlike when we were dealing with TKM and Woolsey, we have the wildfire fund that we will be accessing,” Edison International Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigatti said on Tuesday, referring to previous wildfires tied to Edison’s equipment.

The emergency fund is supposed to cover up to $21 billion in damages on behalf of a utility company, but had only amassed $14.7 billion as of December 2024.

Under state law, a utility does not have to reimburse the wildfire fund after using it to cover damages if a review finds it acted prudently to prevent a fire, such as by shutting down power to transmission lines amid high winds. But if Edison is found to have been imprudent, it will have to pay back $4 billion to the fund.

“Based on everything we know today and the information that we’ve reviewed, we believe that Southern California Edison will make a good-faith showing that it was prudent,” Rigatti said.

On Tuesday, Edison International reported first-quarter net income of $1.4 billion and earnings per share of $1.37, up from $1.13 a year ago.

Shares closed at $58.73 on Tuesday, about half a percent higher and down 26% so far this year.

The post Southern California Edison likely to incur ‘material losses’ related to Eaton fire, executive says appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Soboba Fire Department was on the scene helping crews fighting the Eaton Fire from Jan. 8 to Jan. 16, when they returned home. Additional support and resources allowed for quicker containment for small fires and significant progress in containment at the larger fires across the region.

Soboba Fire Chief Glenn Patterson said requests for assistance are managed by Cal-OES, utilizing the statewide mutual aid system. “This request came from our dispatch center who was contacted by the OES regional coordinator,” he said. “Whoever is on duty goes when the request comes in and we call back personnel to fill behind.”

It is up to Patterson to approve or deny all mutual aid requests based on the availability of resources and personnel. “I keep in contact with the personnel out on assignment and arrange for any needs and coordinate personnel swaps as needed,” he said.

One engine with three crew members and one Chief Officer was deployed to the Eaton Fire, Division “Juliette,” which was in Sierra Madre. One of those crew members was Soboba Fire Training Battalion Chief Howard Maxcy Jr.

“I think just seeing the devastation of all those homes destroyed and seeing families every day at the roadblocks wondering if their homes were still standing was the worst part for me personally,” Maxcy said. “Our assignments included patrolling the areas for hotspots and helping to identify homes that had been damaged and reporting those addresses to our division group supervisor.”

Patterson said both wildfires and structure fires have their challenges. “The biggest difference is that most structure fires are confined to a building with walls so you usually have a fairly good idea on where the fire can/will go,” he said. “Wildfires are dynamic and constantly changing based on fuel, weather, and topography.”

He said wildfires move much faster and require many more resources but structure fires are difficult when so many houses are burning or threatened, and they can’t save them all.

Soboba Fire Captain John Hines was also on the crew that responded to the mutual aid call. “Our base camp started at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena,” he said. “Duties we performed included structure protection for houses in Sierra Madre that were unburned. I am happy to report that our division saved multiple houses from burning, although we did lose a few. Other duties included recovery missions to locate missing individuals, and unfortunately, we did find a few individuals that did not make it.”

The crew also laid thousands of feet of fire hose to save properties and removed brush away from structures. They also performed public relations duties with all of the displaced individuals, answering questions from the residents and public that were encountered throughout their mission.

“The worst part of the experience at the Eaton fire was to see the magnitude of the devastation of houses and property,” Hines said. “I can safely say this was the worst I’ve seen in over 30 years in the fire service and going to big campaign fires.”

The Eaton Fire burned a total of 14,021 acres and destroyed 9,418 structures, including homes, businesses, schools, and houses of worship through the Altadena, Pasadena and Sierra Madre areas before being fully contained. Maxcy said that helping the same residents day in and day out with their fire prevention needs was a positive take away from the experience.

Hines said the outpouring of support from surrounding communities and the public in general was amazing. He said the generosity was very heartfelt, for example, bringing hot food and drinks for all of the first responders from out of the area.

“Being able to witness how the community came together to support the fire victims was an awesome thing to see; the community brought everything from toothbrushes, sleeping bags, beds, clothes, etc.; you name it, people brought it,” he said. “Having the opportunity to run into many other fire agencies that were from throughout the western United States, and running into many other firefighters who have moved on to other departments that had started at Soboba was a good thing.”

The post Soboba Fire Department assists with Los Angeles wildfires appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Rebecca Marodi, 49, was found Monday at a residence on Rancho Villa Road in Ramona, according to a San Diego Sheriff’s Office news release. Deputies responded around 8:58 p.m. to a report of an assault with a deadly weapon and found Marodi with multiple stab wounds.

Marodi was pronounced dead at the scene, officials said. Homicide detectives are investigating the killing as a potential domestic violence incident and think Marodi knew her killer. The circumstances and motivation of the killing are unknown. Anyone with more information has been asked to contact the San Diego Sheriff’s Homicide Unit at 858-285-6330 or after hours at 858-868-3200.

Marodi started as a volunteer firefighter in 1993 in Moreno Valley and worked as a seasonal firefighter in Riverside and San Bernardino counties from 1994 to 2000, according to Cal Fire and the Riverside County Fire Department. Marodi was a fire apparatus engineer in 2007 and promoted to captain in 2022.

Marodi was among the many firefighters who helped battle the deadly Eaton fire last month, according to an Instagram post.

The post Cal Fire captain who battled Eaton fire was killed by someone she likely knew, officials say appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.