Risks

As heat related power outages surge, things are expected to worsen, with AI-focused data centres sucking up power.

The heatwave currently blanketing two-thirds of the United States with record-setting temperatures is straining the nation’s power system.

On Monday, Con Edison, New York City’s power provider, urged residents to conserve electricity. It reduced power voltage to the borough of Brooklyn by 8 percent as it made repairs; it did the same to areas in the boroughs of Staten Island and Queens yesterday. Thousands also lost power as the grid could not handle the strain.

Comparable outages have been felt around much of the East Coast and Midwest including in the states of Virginia and New Jersey. In Philadelphia and Cleveland, power went out for thousands of customers after severe thunderstorms late last week, and has yet to be restored as the region faces high temperatures.

The national railroad corporation Amtrak reported delays on Tuesday due to speed restrictions caused by the heat on routes that went through Washington, Philadelphia and New York.

Power grid woes

This heatwave is bringing attention to the vulnerability of the power infrastructure in the US.

In the latest annual assessment from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), large parts of the US have insufficient power reserves to operate in “above-normal conditions”, including parts of the Midwest, Texas, New England and southern California.

Heat-related power grid strains have surged in recent years. According to a report from Climate Central released last year, there have been 60 percent more heat-related power outages between 2014-2023 than in the 10 years prior.

This comes amid new but growing pressures on the US power grid, including the prevalence of artificial intelligence data centres and the energy needed to power them. In 2022, in northern Virginia, Dominion Energy warned that data centres there used up so much energy that it might be unable to keep up with surging demand.

For AI data centres, that strain is only set to get more pressing as generative AI booms. It is expected that AI server farms’ power demand will increase to 12 percent by 2030.

There are also more immediate concerns of a cyberthreat from Iranian-backed “hacktivists”, which could target the US power grid at a vulnerable moment to avenge the recent US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, CNN reported. The US power grid cyberthreat sharing centre has been monitoring the dark web for threats, it said, as the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning on Sunday about potential cyberattacks.

“Both hacktivists and Iranian government-affiliated actors routinely target poorly secured US networks and Internet-connected devices for disruptive cyber attacks,” the advisory said.

In 2023, Iran-linked hacktivists targeted a water authority in Pennsylvania with minimal success. In 2024, US authorities discovered that Iran-associated hackers were behind cyberattacks on US healthcare facilities.

Power grids are particularly at risk, according to a 2024 report by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which said that there are as many as 23,000 to 24,000 susceptible points in the US power grid systems that could be vulnerable to cyberattacks.

South Asia, a crucible of ancient civilizations and modern rivalries, stands at a perilous crossroads. For over two decades, Michael Kugelman, a leading American foreign policy expert and Director of the South Asia Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center, has meticulously charted its volatile course. His insights reveal a region increasingly caught between the existential dread of nuclear arsenals and the explosive forces of populist narratives and fervent nationalism. The recent, harrowing crisis between India and Pakistan in May 2025 – a conflict that saw missile strikes, drone warfare, and an almost immediate breakdown of a US-backed ceasefire – serves as a chilling testament to these escalating dynamics.

Kugelman’s analysis begins with a foundational, yet often overlooked, truth: South Asia’s inherent fragmentation. “This is a region where you have many countries that simply struggle to get along,” he observes, pointing beyond the omnipresent India-Pakistan antagonism to include fraught relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and India’s recurring disputes with its smaller neighbors. Borders, everywhere, are a flashpoint – disputed, porous, or simply volatile.

This chronic discord found its sharpest expression in the May 2025 conflagration. Following a brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India launched “Operation Sindoor,” a series of missile strikes deep inside Pakistan. Islamabad retaliated with “Operation Bunyaan al Marsoos,” deploying its own ballistic missiles and engaging in an unprecedented drone duel. Kugelman notes how quickly the Line of Control (LoC), which had enjoyed a four-year truce, ignited. “Once again, now the LoC is extremely tense and particularly significant, given that you’ve got two nuclear states there,” he underscores, highlighting the hair-trigger nature of this enduring fault line.

The ascent of populist and nationalist politics, particularly in India, has fundamentally altered the calculus of nuclear deterrence, making escalation both more probable and profoundly less predictable. Kugelman argues that the current Indian government has shrewdly harnessed a hardline stance on Pakistan for domestic political gain. The 2019 crisis, unfolding on the cusp of Indian elections, saw New Delhi launch airstrikes beyond Pakistan-administered Kashmir for the first time since 1971. “I think that one could argue that the Indian decision to take the steps that it did… was in some ways driven by considerations about politics,” Kugelman explains.

This phenomenon is not unilateral. Domestic political agendas in both nations frequently weaponize cross-border tensions. Even if the strident rhetoric from nationalist media in India is partly performative, “that still has an impact on how the public, the broader public, looks at and perceives Pakistan.” This creates immense public pressure, demanding forceful retaliation for any perceived slight or attack, as demonstrated by the furious public outcry after the Pahalgam incident in May 2025. “There’s going to be significant amounts of pressure from the public on the government in India… it was very clear that India was going to respond with force,” Kugelman states, emphasizing how deeply public sentiment now intertwines with strategic decisions.

Fuelling this volatile public sentiment is a media landscape saturated with jingoism and, often, outright disinformation. While English-language nationalist channels capture global attention, the broader media sphere across South Asia consistently ratchets up hyper-sensationalism during crises. “It can be very dangerous,” Kugelman warns, “Because… the jingoism also encourages and at times propagates disinformation. And, you know, that in and of itself is very dangerous.” He directly connects this trend to recent conflicts, stating, “on the Indian side, so much of the jingoistic media content was accompanied by disinformation. I mean, oftentimes it was synonymous.” In an age where narratives can be manufactured and amplified at warp speed, this weaponized information environment makes rational de-escalation a monumental challenge.

The rise of cyber warfare, hybrid threats, and widespread disinformation campaigns raises critical questions about the efficacy of traditional nuclear doctrines. While governments are undeniably engaging in these new forms of conflict, Kugelman asserts that they do not diminish the paramount importance of maintaining nuclear preparedness. Both India and Pakistan have shown a disturbing willingness to employ conventional force increasingly, pushing closer to the nuclear threshold. “The more that you use, the higher up the escalation ladder you get,” he cautions, “and the higher you get up, you get closer to bumping up against the ceiling.”

Disinformation, by inflaming passions and deepening animosity, can dangerously accelerate this ascent. Kugelman suggests that these new dimensions of warfare, far from supplanting nuclear concerns, in fact amplify them. “One could argue… cyber warfare disinformation can deepen tensions between two countries that are nuclear and raise the risk, further raise the risk of nuclear escalation.” Compounding this is the ongoing internal debate in India regarding its stated No-First-Use (NFU) nuclear policy, with past statements from senior officials hinting at a potential reconsideration – a move that could further erode predictability in an already volatile environment.

China’s expanding military and economic influence casts an undeniable shadow over South Asia’s security dynamics. Despite recent diplomatic efforts between India and China, including a border agreement in late 2024 aimed at easing tensions, the core strategic competition persists. The May 2025 crisis vividly demonstrated the enduring strength of the China-Pakistan alliance, with Pakistan deploying Chinese-made jets against India for the first time in combat. Kugelman emphasizes that China remains Pakistan’s most critical arms supplier, capable of providing weapons systems that no other partner can match, especially as the U.S. continues to restrict Pakistan’s use of American-made weaponry against India.

China’s economic reach, primarily through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), is region-wide. While Kugelman notes a general slowdown in some BRI projects due to security concerns and economic issues – a trend confirmed by recent reports showing a significant drop in CPEC investment – China’s economic influence remains formidable. “This is really just something consistent that’s been playing out for some time,” he states, highlighting Beijing’s deep, steady penetration into the region, reshaping its strategic calculus.

Amidst these rising pressures, the question of strategic stability looms large. Kugelman offers a cautiously optimistic assessment: “the nuclear deterrent is actually alive and well.” While the May 2025 conflict tested the deterrent in ways not seen since the massive border buildup of 2001-2002, both sides ultimately demonstrated a shared desire to avoid an all-out war. “Neither side wanted an all out war,” he stresses, distinguishing governmental intent from jingoistic public rhetoric. India’s rapid, targeted airstrikes and Pakistan’s contained, albeit forceful, response were, in Kugelman’s view, calibrated moves reflecting a continued respect for the nuclear red line. The fact that India and Pakistan largely managed to negotiate their own ceasefire, rather than relying solely on external mediation, further underscores their grim recognition of the catastrophic stakes.

However, this “alive and well” deterrent is perpetually tested. India’s missile strikes, whether depicted as targeting terrorists or military assets, were unequivocally viewed by Pakistan as a violation of sovereignty. “When it comes to conflict… international normative ideals around respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity… they go out the door,” Kugelman starkly reminds us. The very act of such cross-border retaliation, irrespective of nuclear use, chips away at the foundational principles of statehood and international law, keeping the entire region on tenterhooks.

The path to de-escalation and sustained peace talks remains fraught. The Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMO) hotline, a vital communication channel even during wars, remains open and was utilized during the recent crisis. Beyond this, however, “the two sides just don’t line up when it comes to the issue of dialogue.” India’s unwavering stance against engaging Pakistan until “cross-border terrorism” ceases, combined with its rejection of discussing Pakistan-administered Kashmir, clashes directly with Pakistan’s insistence on Kashmir as a core issue.

Prime Minister Modi’s early attempt at outreach to then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, followed by a terrorist attack, appears to have instilled a “once bitten, twice shy” caution. And while Pakistan publicly calls for talks, it too has conditions. Adding to this grim calculus is the recurring “spoiler act”—often a terrorist attack—that invariably derails any nascent momentum toward dialogue. While India traditionally rejects third-party mediation for comprehensive talks, the May 2025 crisis saw a quiet but significant role played by external actors, with the UAE in particular thanked by Pakistan’s Prime Minister for its efforts in de-escalation, building on its prior role in brokering the LoC truce. This suggests that limited, targeted mediation for specific de-escalation objectives might be the only viable avenue for external engagement.

In a world increasingly consumed by its own inward-looking concerns, the question of who will fill the potential vacuum in South Asian peace looms large. Kugelman offers a sobering answer: “the region is going to be on its own.” While major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China broadly align in their desire to prevent nuclear escalation—a shared concern often rooted in their own vested interests in regional stability—their capacity and willingness for sustained, comprehensive mediation are limited. China, despite its rivalry with India, has massive investments in Pakistan that it cannot afford to see imperiled. Russia seeks new friends amidst its isolation. The U.S. balances critical interests with both India and Pakistan, making broad intervention fraught.

Yet, amidst this potential vacuum, Kugelman identifies a crucial, if understated, role for regional powers with significant leverage. He points specifically to the Arab Gulf states. “They provide significant amounts of energy exports and other goods,” he explains, giving them economic sway. Furthermore, the UAE’s successful role in brokering the LoC truce demonstrates a capacity for targeted, effective mediation. These nations, though not global superpowers, may be best positioned to “suggest incentives for India and Pakistan to ensure that things don’t get completely out of control.”

South Asia, a region of immense human potential, finds itself perpetually walking a razor’s edge. The interplay of nuclear might, emotionally charged narratives, and aggressive nationalism threatens to pull it closer to the abyss. Michael Kugelman’s sharp analysis reminds us that while the nuclear deterrent may still hold, its resilience is being tested as never before, demanding sustained vigilance and creative diplomatic solutions from within and, perhaps, from unexpected corners of the world.

Israel says that ending Iran’s nuclear programme is a key aim of its attacks on the country.

Israel is widely believed to have nuclear arms, but has never admitted that.

So, what are the nuclear capabilities of both sides, and what are the risks from this conflict?

Presenter: Laura Kyle

Guests:

Dan Smith – Director at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Sahil Shah – Nuclear weapons policy analyst in London

Rebecca Johnson – Director at the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy and former senior adviser to Dr Hans Blix, who was formerly the top UN weapons inspector in Iraq and an IAEA chief

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi says Iran has reported no elevated radiation levels after Israel’s attack on the Natanz nuclear facility. He warned of risks to public safety and urged all sides to avoid further escalation.

Love Island viewers witnessed one Islander risk drama with another girl on the ITV2 series, as she boldly set out to steal their man amid a brutal dumping looming

There could be our first bit of drama on Love Island this week, as a possible feud was teased.

One girl’s bold decision sparked tension in the villa, and even led to a co-star making an equally brazen decision. Two girls sparked a rivalry over the same man, with one vowing not to be left single.

Maya Jama had tasked Islander Shakira with wooing one of the boys after being left single by her own partner Ben during Monday’s episode. New girl Toni had just entered the villa as a bombshell and claimed Ben for herself.

Maya warned Shakira that if she did not strike up a connection with another boy in 24 hours, then she would be sent home. So on Tuesday night we saw the Islander getting to work, grafting with the boys.

As she spent time with them to try and find a connection, desperate to stay in the villa, she certainly sparked concern amongst the other girls. It had been revealed that if Shakira picked a boy and they agreed to couple up with her, then that person’s current girl would be dumped instead of Shakira.

READ MORE: Love Island LIVE: First spoilers as girl dumped and two bombshells tear up villa

With the pressure on, Shakira made some bold moves by getting to know the guys and pulling them for chats, keeping them away from their current partners. But one girl was far from happy, and soon had the backing of her fellow Islanders.

Megan took matters into her own hands as she witnessed her boy Tommy speaking with a flirty Shakira. Clearly worrying about being dumped, she shared her fears with her co-stars, with Meg, Helena and Dejon all telling her not to sit back and let it happen.

As she prepared to “claim her man” she brazenly walked over and interrupted Shakira and Tommy’s cosy chat. She took him to the terrace, far away from her new rival, before confessing she was “jealous”.

With the girls clearly rattled by Shakira’s plan it certainly got tense – but a kiss between Megan and Tommy sealed they were definitely on the right track. But could Shakira’s actions in the villa spark drama with the others or even Megan going forward if she manages to survive the looming dumping?

It comes after fans questioned some “missing scenes” after some drama between two Islanders. Just last night on the series fans saw the couples formed, before bombshell Toni caused carnage.

While some couples were clearly thrilled by their pairings, others were not. Shakira and Ben even had a frosty moment just moments before Toni entered the villa and stole him.

Ben had claimed to Maya that their pairing was “love/hate” sparking confusion with fans. Many wondered if they’d missed some scenes, unsure why the couple were already “bickering” as one of their co-stars put it just hours into the show.

They’d had a chat before Toni’s entrance where Ben had seemed to hint he was already thinking about who else might come in, and he didn’t seem interested. Fans picked up on this, also noting Shakira didn’t look impressed by their chat.

French President Emmanuel Macron warned that France will have to toughen its stance on Israel if it continues to block humanitarian aid to Gaza. He urged Israel to allow food, water, and medicine, and reiterated France’s support for a two-state solution.

In a one-minute video, US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr revoked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that healthy children and healthy pregnant women be vaccinated for COVID-19, leaving some experts concerned and others unsure about the policy’s details.

Kennedy was joined in the video, posted on May 27 on X, by Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya.

Kennedy, who was tapped by President Donald Trump after a years-long embrace of vaccine conspiracy theories, did not make it clear whether he was referring to a recommendation for children or pregnant women getting vaccinated for the first time, for getting subsequent booster shots, or both. Days after the announcement, HHS’s website provided no clarity, saying, “COVID-19 vaccines are available to everyone 6 months and older. Getting vaccinated is the best way to help protect people from COVID-19.” A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webpage dated January 7 – before Kennedy was secretary – provided a similar broad vaccine endorsement.

Some experts say the low rates of serious COVID-19 cases among children justify tightening the federal vaccine recommendation. Others say that the move will make it harder to get vaccinated and cause preventable serious illnesses.

Kennedy broke from norms by not waiting for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to vote on vaccine guidance at a scheduled June meeting.

Recommending against vaccination for certain groups could make it harder for most children and pregnant women to get the shot, if insurers decide not to cover COVID-19 shots for those groups. Immunization rates are already low, with 13 percent of children and 14.4 percent of pregnant women up to date with the 2024-25 edition of the COVID-19 vaccine, the CDC found in late April.

We fact-checked the three federal health officials’ comments with health experts.

Kennedy said child vaccine boosters lacked clinical data

Kennedy said, “Last year, the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot, despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children.”

In recent years, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – a group of outside experts that advises the CDC on who should be vaccinated and how often – has recommended annual boosters for healthy children who have already received COVID-19 vaccines.

The committee made this recommendation without also recommending that every annual iteration of the vaccine undergo new rounds of clinical trials before being used, said Dr William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center. (The vaccine had been approved by the FDA for safety and efficacy early in the pandemic.) The panel concluded that the coronavirus vaccine operated in the same way as the annual flu vaccine, which has not required repeated clinical trials, said Schaffner, a former committee member and current adviser.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians also recommended COVID-19 vaccinations for children and did not urge new clinical trials.

Kids generally don’t need the vaccination, FDA chief said

Makary said, “There’s no evidence healthy kids need” the vaccine.

This is disputed. Most children will not face serious illness from COVID-19, but a small fraction will. Experts draw different lines when deciding how widespread the vaccination programme needs to be, given this scale of risk.

During the 2024-25 COVID-19 season, children and adolescents age 17 and younger comprised about 4 percent of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations. The relatively small number of serious cases among children has driven the belief among some scientists that the universal vaccination recommendation is too broad.

However, among all children, rates of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations were highest among infants less than six months old.

“With 4 million new children born every year with no exposure to COVID, young children have rates of disease similar to the disease rates in people older than 65,” Schaffner said, citing a September 2024 article on the CDC’s website.

COVID-19 was among the top 10 causes of death in children during the worst of the pandemic between 2020 and 2022, said Tara C Smith, a Kent State University epidemiologist. “Though we may no longer be at that stage … we vaccinate for influenza, so why not continue to do so for COVID?”

Some doctors are concerned about the lingering syndrome known as long COVID, about which less is known, especially among children.

The outside advisory committees and the medical academies found this level of serious disease to be sufficient to recommend continued annual vaccinations.

Makary said this policy is similar to those in other countries

Makary was accurate when he said that “most countries have stopped recommending” routine COVID-19 vaccination for children.

“Many countries will only offer the COVID vaccine to children if they have underlying health conditions or are immunocompromised,” said Brooke Nichols, a Boston University associate professor of global health.

Makary co-wrote a May 20 article that included a list of booster recommendations in Canada, Europe and Australia. It said in most countries, the recommendation was to vaccinate older people or those at high risk.

Most countries have taken this course, Schaffner said, because “by now, 95 percent of us have had experience with COVID, either through the vaccine or through illness or both. And second, the current variants are thought to be much milder than some of the earlier variants.”

The World Health Organization in 2024 recommended the COVID-19 vaccine for children with health risks who had never been vaccinated. For children and adolescents who had previously been vaccinated, it did not routinely recommend revaccination.

The European Medicines Agency recommended the BioNtech Pfizer vaccine for children over the age of five years and said the use of the vaccine for children is effective and safe. Euronews reported that the agency issued its recommendation in November 2021 and later recommended the Moderna vaccine for children ages 12 to 17.

In the United Kingdom, “only older people or those with specific diseases or illnesses making them susceptible to severe COVID were recommended to get boosters, and as a result, uptake in those groups was actually higher than in the US,” where outreach and advertising for the vaccinations focused on children as well as older people, said Babak Javid, an associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at the University of California-San Francisco.

The New York Times found that in Europe “many countries do not recommend the vaccines for healthy children under 5, but the shots are approved for everyone 6 months and older,” meaning that they can be safely used by anyone who’s at least six months old.

Doctors say the vaccine protects pregnant women

Experts disagreed with Kennedy’s recommendation against vaccinating pregnant women, saying the vaccine protects pregnant women and their infants.

Steven J Fleischman, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists president, said, “It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families. In fact, growing evidence shows just how much vaccination during pregnancy protects the infant after birth, with the vast majority of hospitalised infants less than six months of age – those who are not yet eligible for vaccination – born to unvaccinated mothers.”

After a vaccination, antibodies reach the fetus. The doctors’ group said there is no evidence the vaccine creates adverse effects for either mother or the fetus, although fever or pain at the injection site are possible.

The federal government in May provided conflicting information about the vaccine and pregnancy.

In Makary’s May 20 article, he and his co-author included pregnancy on the CDC’s 2025 list of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19.

“They literally contradicted themselves over the course of a couple of days,” said Dr Peter Hotez, Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development co-director. “It appears RFK Jr reversed his own FDA’s decision.”

Following the May 27 video announcement, Makary told NBC that the decision about vaccination should be between a pregnant woman and her doctor.

A 2024 review of 67 studies found that fully vaccinated pregnant women had a 61 percent lower likelihood of a COVID-19 infection during pregnancy.

What’s next?

In its June meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices might move towards less sweeping recommendations for vaccinating children, closer to those that Kennedy enacted.

“If you listened to the discussions in the most recent previous meeting, they very much seemed to be moving in a more targeted approach,” Schaffner said.

The question of pregnant women may be one where the advisory committees may recommend more flexibility with vaccine usage than what Kennedy’s video statement seems to suggest, Schaffner said.

Other areas where the panels could back greater flexibility could be for otherwise healthy people who serve as caregivers or who live with more vulnerable people who are advanced in age or are immunocompromised.

Edison International officers and directors misled the company’s investors about the effectiveness of its efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire in the months and years before the devastating Eaton fire, a shareholder lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, points to repeated statements that the utility made in federal regulatory reports that said it had reduced the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by more than 85% since 2018 by increasing equipment inspections, tree trimming and other work aimed at stopping fires.

The complaint also raises doubts about news releases and other statements that Edison made soon after the start of Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Altadena.

“We take all legal matters seriously,” said Jeff Monford, a spokesman for Edison. “We will review this lawsuit and respond through the appropriate legal channels.”

The lawsuit claims that Edison’s early statements on the Eaton fire — in which it detailed why it believed its equipment was not involved in the fire’s start — were wrong.

“Edison obfuscated the truth by making false and misleading statements concerning its role in the fire,” the lawsuit claims.

More recently, Pedro Pizarro, the chief executive of Edison International, said the leading theory for the fire’s start was the reenergization of an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon.

The investigation by state and local fire investigators into the official cause of the deadly fire is continuing.

The lawsuit was filed as a derivative action in which shareholders sue a company’s officers and directors on behalf of the company, claiming they had breached their fiduciary duties. It seeks financial damages from Pizarro, Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigatti and members of the company’s board of directors. Money recovered would go to the company.

It also directs Edison “to take all necessary actions” to reform its corporate governance procedures, comply with all laws and protect the company and its investors “from a recurrence of the damaging events.”

The lawsuit was brought by Charlotte Bark, a shareholder of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison.

“Prior to the outbreak of the Eaton Fire, the Company had a long history of not prioritizing the safety of those who lived in the areas it serviced, and paying fines as a result,” the lawsuit states. Since 2000, it says, Edison has paid financial penalties of $1.3 billion for violating utility safety regulations.

The complaint points to an October regulatory report that was the focus of a Times report. In the article, state regulators criticized some of Edison’s wildfire mitigation efforts, including for falling behind in inspecting transmission lines in areas at high risk of fires.

The lawsuit lists the major destructive wildfires that investigators said were sparked by Edison’s equipment in recent years, including the Bobcat and Silverado fires in 2020, as well as the Coastal and Fairview fires in 2022.

“The recurring wildfire incidents connected to the Company display that the Board has repeatedly failed to mitigate a risk that materially threatens Edison,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit accuses Pizarro, Rigatti and the company’s board of directors of “gross mismanagement” and claims that the defendants “unjustly enriched” themselves.

“Because the Individual Defendants failed to carry out their respective duties, the compensation they received was excessive and undeserved,” the suit states.

It asks the court for an order that would require the officers and directors to pay restitution, including returning the compensation they received that was tied to how well the company performed.