customer

Los Angeles County launched a probe into Farmers Insurance Company’s handling of claims by policyholders impacted by last year’s devastating Eaton and Palisades wildfires, after a growing number of residents complained of delays, denials and underpayments.

In a letter sent to Farmers on Wednesday, the county’s lawyers said if the company is engaging in any unlawful or unfair business practices, it must immediately stop.

“Eaton Fire survivors did everything right—responsibly paying their premiums year after year—but when disaster hit, Farmers left them with a contaminated home and refused to pay for testing and cleanup,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, in a statement.

“My constituents shouldn’t have to walk back into homes with lead and asbestos because an insurance company won’t pay for the test that would prove it’s there,” she added.

Farmers disputed the county’s claims.

“As always, we operate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” the insurer said in a Thursday statement. “We do not believe the inquiry accurately characterizes our actions or practices and will cooperate through the appropriate process.”

“Serving our customers during difficult times is at the heart of what we do, which is why each claim is reviewed individually, taking into account the specific circumstances of the loss and the coverage provided under the policy,” the company said. “We remain focused on handling claims with care, consistency and attention to each customer’s unique situation.”

County officials said that at a recent meeting with Eaton fire survivors, those with Farmers policies said the insurer had been slow or resistant to pay for toxin testing by qualified industrial hygienists, forcing residents to pay for it themselves.

The testing revealed that many homes were contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, asbestos, chromium, and other toxic substances, the county said.

The residents also told the county that Farmers has refused to pay for adequate remediation of the contaminants and declined to cover ongoing living expenses.

“After paying millions of dollars in premiums, policyholders deserve the benefits and support they paid for,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades. “Families whose homes survived the Palisades and Eaton Fires but remain damaged or contaminated should not be forced to choose between returning to an unsafe home and financial devastation.”

The new investigation comes after the county filed a lawsuit against State Farm on Aug. 31 for its handling of Eaton and Palisades fire claims. The county claims State Farm engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices that kept victims from receiving what they were entitled to under their policies. State Farm denied the county’s claims.

The California Legislature just passed two bills that advocates say will greatly improve access to small-scale solar for renters, people in condos and others who don’t have access to their roofs or can’t afford a full rooftop array.

On Sunday night, lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 1813, a third-time effort to force the California Public Utilities Commission to develop a more robust community solar program, in which residents sign up to participate in a small solar array near where they live and pay monthly at a discount on their electrical bills.

“California’s clean energy transition should benefit everyone, not just those who can afford rooftop solar,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), the bill’s author.

Last week, with Senate Bill 868, California’s Legislature also became the latest to legalize plug-in solar. Also known as “balcony solar,” these systems allow anyone — renter or owner — to set small panels on their patios or fences and plug them directly into wall outlets to lower bills without having to navigate utility permissions.

“It’s an idea whose time has come,” said bill author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who noted the devices can bring down bills by hundreds of dollars a year. “It’ll be very beneficial for people who are looking to lower their cost of living.”

The votes come after some difficult years for rooftop solar in California thanks to strong pushback from utility companies. The state had been a leader nationally on solar energy in the 2000s. But installation rates plummeted in 2022 after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Public Utilities Commission sharply cut back incentives for customers.

Utilities that lobbied for the change argued that compensating rooftop solar at a higher rate meant that people without solar panels were disproportionately paying the costs of maintaining the overhead lines that everyone uses.

This year, utilities made similar arguments against both the community solar and balcony solar bills.

Pacific Gas & Electric was successful in inserting an end date for Wiener’s SB 868 balcony solar bill, so, if it is signed into law, the Legislature will have to reauthorize it before 2030.

“While the bill establishes additional guardrails, it also creates a period through 2030 during which plug-in solar devices not meeting key safety and certification requirements could be purchased and used in California,” PG&E spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo said. “We believe customers and emergency personnel deserve the protections that come from clear safety standards and established interconnection processes from the outset.”

Both bills now go to the governor’s desk.

If signed, the balcony solar bill will go into effect once systems have been certified as safe for use in the U.S. by a nationally recognized testing laboratory like UL Solutions. Balcony panels are already certified in Germany, where plug-in solar is popular. Advocates say U.S. certifications will come through soon.

Community solar reform could have a harder time clearing Newsom’s desk, as the Public Utilities Commission, appointed by the governor, has previously opposed this type of program.

All the state’s big investor-owned utilities lobbied against the community solar bill, AB 1813, which would require them to compensate community solar developers and customers at higher rates than those established under the Public Utilities Commission’s current program.

That program, finalized this year, relies on canceled federal funding and incentives that developers say are too low for them to launch new projects.

“We remain opposed to AB 1813 because it would shift significant costs to customers who do not participate in the program,” PG&E’s Paulo said. “This legislation is about profits for solar companies, not customer affordability.”

The Public Advocates Office, the independent consumer advocate at the Public Utilities Commission, said recent amendments to the bill did not address its concerns about shifting costs from one group of ratepayers to another.

“We support expanding community solar so renters and other Californians who cannot install rooftop solar can benefit from clean energy. But the savings for participants should not be financed by raising bills for everyone else,” said Mary Flannelly, a spokesperson for the Public Advocates Office. “Our analysis of AB 1813 estimates that it could shift about $1.5 billion a year onto customers who cannot participate — roughly $12 more per month on average — a sizeable cost.”

Southern California Edison also has opposed the bill. SCE spokesperson David Eisenhauer said it would “expose customers to higher rates and unreasonable costs compared to more cost-effective clean energy sources.”

But Ward disputes that any costs will be shifted to people who don’t have solar. He cited two recent studies that indicate all consumers will benefit from reduced costs when community solar is more available. One found if the state added 5.4 gigawatts of community solar and energy storage, all ratepayers could save $6.5 billion by reducing costs for gas generation, electricity imports and transmission.

Ward and a coalition of environmental groups, solar developers and the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, have tried for years to get the Public Utilities Commission to adopt their vision for a community solar program that would serve people who don’t own or don’t have access to their roofs. Several other states have them.

The bill would compensate community solar developers and customers at a rate that advocates say more accurately accounts for the savings solar brings to the grid, especially on hot days when the system is stressed.

Wiener said both bills are important for helping individuals and communities “to not be trapped in the monopoly utility model that is so expensive.”

“We should empower people to generate their own electricity and to lower their electric bills,” he said.

The Legislature also passed Senate Bill 913, which would allow batteries, electric vehicles, smart thermostats and other consumer-owned devices to be bundled together and counted as a reliable source of electricity for the state’s grid.

Brandon Garcia, California director for Advanced Energy United, an association representing clean energy businesses, said it would help reduce strain on the grid and keep electricity costs in check while “giving customer-owned resources a fair opportunity to compete and deliver reliable energy at an affordable price.”

California regulators have approved the sale of Cox Communications to cable giant Charter Communications — the final hurdle in a marathon review to clear the $34.5-billion cable consolidation.

With Thursday’s sign-off by the California Public Utilities Commission, the mammoth merger is expected to close next week.

The deal will make Charter’s Spectrum the dominant broadband internet and cable television service in Southern California, with millions of customers scattered throughout Santa Barbara, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, Palos Verdes Estates, Newport Beach, Irvine, Riverside and San Diego.

Charter’s acquisition of Cox, unveiled 15 months ago, will solidify Charter’s status as the nation’s largest cable company, eclipsing Philadelphia-based Comcast Corp., which serves San Francisco and other Northern California communities.

“This transformative deal will benefit millions of consumers who will soon have access to greater value and opportunities to save, including our fully converged mobile-broadband bundle savings guarantee, combined with our industry-leading Customer Commitment and the 100% U.S.-based sales and service employees Spectrum is known for,” Charter said in a statement.

After weeks of behind-the-scenes wrangling, the CPUC voted unanimously to approve two settlement agreements with Charter that allow the merger to move forward. The agency attached conditions that it hopes will protect consumers and expand broadband access.

“This decision secures significant commitments that will benefit Californians through expanded affordable broadband options, major infrastructure investments, improved customer protections, and meaningful support for digital inclusion,” Commissioner Matthew Baker, who helped negotiate the agreements, said in a statement.

Federal regulators approved the deal months ago, as had other state regulators.

“This proceeding was a heavy lift for everyone,” Commissioner Darcie L. Houck acknowledged during Thursday’s hearing, which was held in San Francisco.

Through the settlements, Houck said she hoped Charter would address a disparity in which low-income residents are often stuck with higher phone and internet bills than residents in more affluent areas. Higher-income neighborhoods often benefit from increased competition as multiple providers jockey for business.

“There are many areas of the state that do have low-income communities that are paying higher costs for telecommunication services,” Houck said. “I’m hopeful that the provisions in this settlement agreement will help ensure more equity in pricing.”

Atlanta-based Cox has long been viewed as a lucrative prize. In addition to serving coastal communities in Southern California, it also has customers in growing population hubs such as Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson.

To win CPUC approval, the Stamford, Conn.-based cable giant agreed to offer more affordable packages for low-income residents, including several tiers of the California LifeLine service, for up to five years.

Advocates had pushed for a longer commitment.

Charter promised to invest $30 million in education and awareness initiatives in California, including community outreach and digital literacy training. In addition, Charter agreed to spend at least $275 million on upgrades to its equipment in its existing Spectrum service area — including completing a 1-gigabit service buildout — within three years.

The company also must provide free broadband and Wi-Fi service for dozens of eligible community centers, including schools and libraries.

Spectrum will be required to provide automatic bill credits for customers for qualifying service outages that last at least two hours. And the company must honor eligible “price for life” service agreements held by some residential subscribers.

Charter Chief Executive Chris Winfrey has told investors that his firm was aiming to close the merger this month. Several commissioners noted the looming deadline as they opted for the settlement that Baker helped negotiate.

Regulators said the two companies generate more than $10 billion in revenue from their California customers. In addition to serving more than 5 million homes, they also provide telephone service to 1.5 million subscribers in the state.

California regulators have approved Charter’s $34.5-billion purchase of Cox Communications.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

After the deal closes, Cox customers will be switched to Spectrum service, most likely by mid-September. They should also get SportsNet LA — the Dodgers’ television channel — as part oftheir lineups.

For more than a decade, Cox has refused to carry the channel, owned by the Dodgers organization, due to its high license fee — leading to one of the television industry’s longest blackouts.