utility

Southern California Edison has cut power to hundreds of thousands of its customers this year, more than ever before, as it attempts to stop its electric lines from sparking wildfires.

The utility has told communities in fire-prone areas in recent weeks that they should expect more of the power shutoffs than in prior years and that the outages could last for longer periods of time.

The Rosemead-based company said it had lowered the wind speed that triggers the blackouts, and added tens of thousands of customers to the areas subject to them, after the devastating Jan. 7 Eaton fire. The inferno, which killed 19 people in Altadena, ignited in high winds under an Edison transmission line.

“You should be ready for the power to cut off at any moment,” Ian Anderson, a government relations manager for Edison, told the Moorpark City Council at an October meeting. He urged residents to buy generators and said the utility doesn’t reimburse customers for spoiled food and other losses if it believes the blackouts were required by “an act of God.”

“But PSPS is not an act of God,” responded Moorpark Councilmember Renee Delgado, using the acronym for public safety power shutoffs. “It’s a choice SCE is making.”

For more than a decade, California utilities have used the shutoffs to stop their equipment from sparking fires. The intentional outages have become so established in California’s wildfire prevention plans that Edison now faces lawsuits saying that it failed to shut off some of its lines before the Eaton fire.

Yet in recent months, the utility has heard a chorus of complaints from communities including Moorpark and Malibu that it is blacking out customers even when the winds are calm. And the utility often has failed to warn people of the coming outages, making it impossible for them to prepare, according to filings at the state Public Utilities Commission.

“You guys have put us into a Third World situation,” Scott Dittrich, a resident of Malibu, said at a Sept. 30 meeting that the city had with Edison to address the shutoffs.

Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company recognizes that “any power outage is a hardship.”

But the outages are needed because they have prevented fires in dangerous weather, she said. “Our commitment is to keeping our communities safe,” she added.

This year, Edison has cut off 534,000 customers to prevent fires, according to data it filed with state regulators. That’s almost four times the 137,000 customers subject to the blackouts in 2024.

Under state rules, utilities can use the outages only as a measure of last resort — when the risk of electrical equipment igniting a fire is greater than the dangerous hazards the blackouts cause.

Disconnecting a neighborhood or city can cause far more than just inconvenience.

Traffic lights no longer work, causing perilous intersections. During a Dec. 10 outage in Moorpark, a utility truck failed to stop at a nonworking light on State Route 118, crashing into a sedan. The driver was injured and had to be extracted from the truck by emergency responders, according to the city’s report to state regulators.

The shutoffs also leave residents who have medical problems without the use of needed devices and refrigerators to store medications.

And they can cut off communication, stopping residents from getting evacuation warnings and other emergency messages.

During the Eaton and Palisades fires, the power shutoffs, as well as outages caused by wind and fire damage, “significantly disrupted the effectiveness of evacuation messaging,” according to a recent review of Los Angeles County’s emergency performance.

In the last three months of last year, Edison received 230 reports of traffic accidents, people failing to get needed medical care and other safety problems tied to the shutoffs, according to the company’s reports.

Dunleavy said Edison turned off the power only when staff believed the risk of fire exceeded the outages’ consequences.

Nonetheless, Alice Reynolds, president of the Public Utilities Commission, told Edison last month that she had “serious concern” about how the utility was leaving more customers in the dark.

Reynolds wrote in a letter to Steve Powell, the utility’s chief executive, that records showed that the company de-energized not just a record number of residential customers in January, but also more than 10,000 crucial facilities such as hospitals. The longest blackout lasted for 15 days, she said.

“There is no question that power outages — particularly those that are large scale and extended over many days — can cause significant hardship to customers, jeopardizing the safety of customers with medical needs who rely on electricity and disrupting businesses, critical facilities, and schools,” she wrote.

Reynolds said she would require Edison executives to hold biweekly meetings with state regulators where they must show how they planned to limit the scope and duration of the blackouts and improve their notifications to customers of coming shutoffs.

Powell wrote back to her, acknowledging “that our execution of PSPS events has not always met expectations.”

“SCE remains committed to improving its PSPS program to help customers prepare for potential de-energizations and reduce the impacts,” he wrote.

Since 2019, Edison has charged billions of dollars to customers for wildfire prevention work, including increased equipment inspections and the installation of insulated wires, which it said would reduce the need for the shutoffs.

Just four months before the Eaton fire, at an annual safety meeting, Edison executives told state regulators that the utility’s fire mitigation work had been so successful that it had sharply reduced the number of shutoffs, while also decreasing the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by as much as 90%.

A year later, at this year’s annual safety meeting in August, those risk reduction estimates were gone from the company’s presentation. Instead, Edison executives said they expected the number of shutoffs to increase this year by 20% to 40%. They added that the average size of the areas subject to the outages could be twice as large as last year.

The executives blamed “below average rainfall and extended periods of high winds” for increasing the risk that the company’s equipment could start a fire.

“The weather is getting more difficult for us,” Jill Anderson, Edison’s chief operating officer, said at the meeting.

Some customers have questioned whether the utility’s increasingly unreliable electricity lines should be solely blamed on the weather. They say the shutoffs have seemed more and more random.

The Acton Town Council told the utilities commission in January that Edison was blacking out residents when dangerous conditions “do not exist.”

At the same time, the council wrote, Edison had cut power to neighborhoods served by wires that had been undergrounded, an expensive upgrade that Edison has said would prevent the need for the shutoffs.

Edison’s Dunleavy said that although the Acton homes in those neighborhoods were served by underground lines, they were connected to a circuit that had overhead lines, requiring them to be turned off.

“We try to reroute as much as possible to minimize disruptions,” she said.

At the Moorpark City Council meeting, residents spoke of how the repeated outages, some lasting for days, had caused children to miss school and businesses to close their doors and lose revenue.

The residents also spoke of how their electric bills continued to rise as they had spent more days in the dark.

Joanne Carnes, a Moorpark resident, told Anderson, Edison’s government relations manager, that her last monthly bill was $421.

“Why are we paying more than a car payment,” she asked, “for a service that is not able to provide power?”

Southern California Edison increased the number of Eaton fire victims that are eligible to file claims for damages in its final compensation proposal, though some Altadena residents say the utility’s program still falls short.

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.

Standing behind a lectern emblazoned with the words “Cutting Utility Bills,” Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law last month a package of energy bills that he said “reduces the burden on ratepayers.”

Tucked into one of those bills: a paragraph that could allow Southern California Edison to shift billions of dollars of Eaton fire damage costs to its customers.

Among other things, the bill allows Edison to start charging customers for any Eaton fire costs exceeding the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund.

“I was shocked to see that,” said April Maurath Sommer, executive director of the Wild Tree Foundation, which tracks state government actions on utility-sparked fires. “It’s effectively a bailout.”

Other amendments in the 231-page bill known as SB 254 helped not just Edison, but all three of the state’s biggest for-profit utilities, further limiting the costs that they and their shareholders would face if the companies’ equipment ignited a catastrophic wildfire.

Previous legislation championed by Newsom, a 2019 bill known as AB 1054, already had sharply limited the utilities’ liabilities for wildfires they cause.

Staff in the governor’s office declined a request for an interview. In a statement, Daniel Villasenor, a spokesman for Newsom, called SB 254 “smart public policy, not a giveaway.”

Newsom’s staff noted that the state Public Utilities Commission would later review Eaton fire costs, determining if they were “just and reasonable.” If some costs billed to customers were rejected in that review, Edison shareholders would have to reimburse them for those amounts, the governor’s office said.

According to the legislation, that review of costs isn’t required until all Eaton claims are settled, leaving the possibility that customers would have to cover even costs found to be unreasonable for years.

“That will be expensive news to a lot of people,” said Michael Boccadoro, executive director of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Assn. “It is unfortunately what happens when major policies are done in the final hours of the Legislature with little transparency.”

Damages for the Eaton fire have been estimated to be as high as $45 billion — which could greatly exceed the $21-billion fund.

Homes in Altadena lay in ruins after the Eaton fire.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Sheri Scott, an actuary at Milliman, told state officials in July that insured losses alone range from $13.7 billion to $22.8 billion. That estimate doesn’t include payments to families who were uninsured or underinsured, or compensation for pain and suffering.

The bill allows Edison to issue bonds secured by new payments from its electric customers for Eaton fire costs that can’t be covered by the $21-billion fund.

Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company supported the bill’s language because the bonds secured by customer payments provide a lower cost of borrowing than if the company used traditional financing. “Every dollar counts for our customers,” Dunleavy said.

“There are a lot of variables here,” Dunleavy added. “The investigation is ongoing and there is not an estimate of the total cost of the Eaton fire.”

Newsom’s office noted that under the amendments the utilities won’t get to earn a profit on $6 billion of wildfire prevention expenditures. Customers will still have to pay for the costs, but they won’t be charged extra for shareholders’ profit.

Since early this year, Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric had been lobbying Newsom and state legislative leaders, urging them to bolster the $21-billion fund because of concerns it could be exhausted by the Eaton fire’s extraordinary cost.

Videos captured the Jan. 7 inferno igniting under a century-old transmission line that Edison had not used for 50 years. The wildfire swept through Altadena, destroying 9,400 homes and other structures and killing at least 19 people.

Edison now faces hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims. The suits accuse Edison of negligence, claiming it failed to safely maintain its equipment and left in place the unused transmission line, which lawyers say Edison knew posed a fire risk.

“We’ll respond to the allegations in the litigation,” Dunleavy said, adding that the company inspects and maintains idle lines in the same way as its energized lines.

Even though the government’s investigation into the cause has not been released, Edison announced in July that it was starting a program to directly pay victims for damages.

The company has also begun settling with insurance companies that paid out claims for properties they insured in Altadena that were destroyed or damaged.

Limiting Edison’s liability for Eaton fire

The utility is expecting to be reimbursed for most or all of the settlements and the costs of the fire by the $21-billion wildfire fund that Newsom and lawmakers created through the 2019 legislation, according to a July update Edison gave to its investors.

The first $1 billion of damages is covered by an insurance policy paid by its customers.

After state officials warned that the Eaton fire could deplete the state fund, Newsom said in July he was working on a plan to create an additional fund of $18 billion.

Two days before the Legislature was scheduled to recess for the year, three lawmakers added complex language to SB 254 to create what Newsom called the new $18-billion wildfire “continuation account.” Before the bill was amended, consumer groups had been supporting it because it aimed to save electric customers money.

The late amendments required the Legislature to extend its session by a day to meet a state constitutional rule that says proposed legislation must be public for 72 hours before a final vote.

“It’s impossible to believe that legislators could have understood all of this in 72 hours,” Maurath Sommer said. She noted that Newsom’s 2019 law, AB 1054, was introduced and quickly passed in a similar manner. “And it is clear now how poorly that effort fared in achieving the claimed objective of protecting public safety.”

Boccadoro said he believed the amendments were added to a bill favored by consumer groups to give it “some political cover.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), one of bill’s authors, said she believed utilities needed protection from wildfire liabilities because of a legal doctrine in California known as inverse condemnation, which makes them responsible for damages even if they weren’t negligent in starting it.

“This is the best possible deal for ratepayers as we navigate the truly devastating impacts of the climate crisis,” Petrie-Norris said of the legislation. The other two authors — state Sens. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) — did not respond to requests for interviews.

After the bill passed, both Edison and PG&E praised its provisions in presentations for investors.

Edison called the bill “a key action” that demonstrated lawmakers’ support of its “financial stability.”

The amendments added to the protections that utilities gained in 2019 through Newsom’s AB 1054. At that time, PG&E was in bankruptcy proceedings. It had filed for protection after its transmission line was found to have ignited the 2018 Camp fire, which killed 85 people and destroyed most of the town of Paradise.

PG&E explained in a September presentation that before Newsom and lawmakers changed the law in 2019, utilities that wanted to pass fire damage costs to customers “bore the burden of proving” that their conduct related to the blaze was reasonable and prudent.

Newsom’s 2019 law changed that standard, PG&E said, so that the utility’s conduct was automatically deemed reasonable if state regulators had granted the company what the law called a safety certificate.

Since 2019, the state has regularly issued the companies these certificates — even when regulators find maintenance and safety problems.

Edison received a safety certificate less than a month before the Eaton fire, even though it had thousands of open work orders, including some on the transmission lines in the canyon where the fire started.

To get a certificate, the utilities must submit a plan to state regulators for preventing their equipment from sparking fires. They also must tie executive pay to the company’s safety performance, with bonuses expected to take a hit when more fires are sparked or people are killed.

Even though Edison failed at key safety measures last year, The Times found that cash bonuses for four of its top five executives rose. The company said that was because of their performance on responsibilities beyond safety.

With a safety certificate in hand, Edison told investors in July that the maximum it would pay for the Eaton fire under the law’s limit was $3.9 billion, a fraction of the expected costs. The utility said the wildfire fund would reimburse it for all the costs, unless an outside party can raise “serious doubt” that it had not acted reasonably before the fire.

The SB 254 amendments also clarified key language in the 2019 law — clarifications that Edison told investors in September were “constructive for potential Eaton fire losses.”

That language allows utilities that cause repeated major wildfires within a period of three years to reduce what they must pay back to the fund for a second fire if they are found to have acted imprudently.

“This certainly does not seem to encourage utilities to stop causing fires,” Maurath Sommer said of the provision.

Edison’s Dunleavy dismissed concern about the provision. “Safety remains our top priority,” she said.

Campaign contributions to Newsom

The three utilities have long been generous political donors to both Democrats and Republicans in California, including to Newsom and current legislative leaders in Sacramento.

Edison, for example, gave $100,000 to Newsom’s campaign last year to pass the mental health initiative known as Proposition 1.

This summer Edison gave $190,000 to the state Democratic Party, which is helping Newsom campaign for Proposition 50, which would redraw congressional districts.

Newsom’s staff didn’t respond to questions about the contributions.

Dunleavy said that the company’s political donations are not charged to customers. She said Edison gives contributions to politicians who share its commitment to “safely serve our customers.”

Newsom said in 2019 that the bill capping utilities’ fire liabilities would “move our state toward a safer, affordable and reliable energy future.”

He and lawmakers said the law would make the public safer by requiring the utilities to do more to prevent fires, including aggressive tree trimming and the installation of more insulated wires.

Even though the utilities have raised electric rates to charge customers for billions of dollars of fire prevention work, their electrical equipment continues to spark blazes.

According to Cal Fire statistics, if the Eaton fire is confirmed to have been ignited by Edison’s transmission line, at least seven of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires would have been caused by the three utilities’ power lines. Two of those utility-sparked fires happened after the 2019 law passed.

Edison’s lines ignited 178 fires last year — 45% more compared with 2019. The company attributed last year’s increase to weather conditions that created more dry vegetation.

The governor’s staff said they disagreed with claims that the legislation reduced utilities’ accountability. They pointed to a measure in the 2019 law that requires a utility to reimburse the wildfire fund for all damages from a fire if its actions are found to constitute “conscious or willful disregard of the rights and safety of others.”

Advocates for utility customers have repeatedly said they believe that standard is too high to keep California utilities from causing more fires.

“Instances of utility mismanagement could easily fall short of the ‘conscious or willful disregard’ standard yet nonetheless cause a series of catastrophic wildfire events,” wrote the commission’s Public Advocates Office in a filing soon after the 2019 law passed.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a sweeping package of climate and environment bills aimed at reducing the cost of electricity, stabilizing gasoline prices and propping up California’s struggling oil industry.

At a bill signing ceremony at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, Newsom told state lawmakers and representatives from labor, business, climate and energy groups that the package was a compromise, designed to push California toward a clean-energy future while still ensuring the state has enough affordable gasoline to meet drivers’ needs.

“Everybody recognized this moment and worked together across their differences, which were not insignificant,” Newsom said.

The bills signed into law include an extension of the state’s nation-leading cap-and-trade program through 2045. The program, rebranded as cap-and-invest, limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions for the state’s climate priorities by allowing large polluters to buy and sell their unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions.

The cap-and-invest program should funnel up to $60 billion through 2045 into lowering utility bill costs for California households and small businesses during months when prices spike, officials said. Another $20 billion will go toward the state’s trudging high-speed rail project, and $12 billion to public transit.

California’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen 20% since 2000, while the state’s gross domestic product increased 78% over the same time period, Newsom’s office said.

The most controversial bill in the package was SB 237, which will allow oil and gas companies to drill up to 2,000 new wells per year through 2036 in Kern County, the heart of California oil country. The bill effectively circumvents a decade of legal challenges by environmental groups seeking to stymie drilling in the county that produces about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil.

Some environmentalists fumed over that trade-off, as well as over a provision that will allow the governor to suspend the state’s summer-blend gasoline fuel standards — which reduce emissions but drive up costs at the pump — if prices spike for more than 30 days or if it seems likely that they will.

That bill was introduced as part of an effort to stabilize volatile gas prices as Valero and Phillips 66 prepare to close refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County’s South Bay that represented an estimated 20% of the state’s refining capac ity.

Environmental groups said the bills still represent progress, particularly as the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress step away from clean energy policy.

“D.C. has not led,” said Katelyn Roedner Sutter, the California state director for the Environmental Defense Fund. “California will.”

Through AB 825, California is also laying the groundwork for an electricity market among Western states. The bill is designed to make it easier to share solar and wind power across state lines, meaning California can export excess solar energy while importing wind energy from gustier places like New Mexico and Wyoming.

“Today is a big win for the Golden State,” said state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg). “If you pay utility bills and you want them lower, you win. If you drive a car and hate gas price spikes, you win. If you want clean drinking water, you win. If you want to breathe clean air, you win today. It’s a pretty big winner’s circle.”

Southern California Edison hasn’t accepted responsibility for igniting the Eaton fire, but it is now offering each victim who lost their home hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a draft of its planned compensation program.

The owner of a 1,500-square-foot home destroyed in the wildfire, given as an example in the company’s draft, would receive $900,000 to rebuild. In addition, the utility is offering that owner an additional $200,000 for agreeing to settle their claim directly with Edison.

The family of each destroyed home would also get compensation for pain and suffering — $100,000 for each adult and $50,000 for each child, according to the draft.

Edison announced in late July that it was creating a program to directly compensate Eaton fire victims to help avoid lengthy litigation. The Jan. 7 fire destroyed more than 9,400 homes and other structures in Altadena and killed at least 19 people.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said in a press release Wednesday that the compensation program for victims was “designed to help them focus on their recovery.”

The company said that it would hold four community meetings to get public comments on the proposed compensation plan, the first scheduled for Thursday at 7 p.m.

“While the investigation continues, inviting input on draft details is the next step in helping the community rebuild faster and stronger,” Pizarro said.

Edison said it had hired consultants Kenneth Feinberg and Camille Biros, who both worked on the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, to help create the program.

“The proposed fund is designed as an alternative to conventional litigation in the courtroom,” said Biros. “The terms and conditions are completely transparent and voluntary. No claimants or their lawyers are required to participate until and unless they are satisfied with the compensation offer.”

Private lawyers representing Eaton fire victims have urged caution. They say similar programs created by utilities to compensate victims of other wildfires resulted in lower payouts than families received through lawsuit settlements.

In court, Edison already faces dozens of lawsuits filed by Eaton fire victims. Settling those lawsuits is expected to take years. Attorneys bringing the cases on behalf of victims would get 30% or more of the eventual settlement amounts.

Edison’s draft protocol lists proposed payments for people who were injured, renters who lost their belongings and businesses that lost property or revenues when they were forced to close.

Among the payments to the families of those who died would be $1.5 million for pain and suffering and other noneconomic damages, according to the draft. Each surviving spouse and other dependent would receive an additional $500,000.

In addition, the family who lost a loved one would receive a direct claim premium — a bonus for settling directly with Edison — of $5 million, according to the plan.

Edison said the direct claim premiums — which include $200,000 for families who lost their home, $10,000 to those whose homes were damaged, as well as other amounts for other victims — were only available through its program and would not be offered in litigation.

The utility said victims don’t need an attorney to apply for the compensation. But it is also offering to add 10% to the damage amounts, excluding the direct claim premiums, to cover legal fees of those who have a lawyer.

Victims will get their compensation offers within nine months of applying, Edison said. The company said it was also offering victims a “fast pay” option where they could receive their financial settlement offer within 90 days.

“Speed in processing claims is essential,” Feinberg said.

Edison has said that the government’s investigation into the fire could take as long as 18 months. Pizarro said in April that a leading theory was that a century-old transmission line that had not been in service since the 1970s somehow became reenergized and sparked the fire.

If Edison’s equipment is found to have caused the blaze, the company would be reimbursed for the cost of amounts it pays to victims by a $21 billion state fund. The fund was created by lawmakers in 2019 to shield utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire.

The public must register to attend the meetings at ce.com/directclaimsupdates. The final meeting is at 7 p.m. on Monday.

The California Public Utilities Commission is expected to allow Southern California Edison to hike customer bills by nearly 10% next month, and there may be more increases to come.

Edison’s plan would boost the average residential bill by $17 a month or about $200 a year, the commission said. The monthly bill for a customer using 500 kilowatts would jump from $171 to $188 on Oct. 1.

The five commissioners are scheduled to vote Thursday on the PUC administrative law judge’s proposal. It’s just one of multiple rate hikes Edison has asked the commission to approve in the coming year.

Scores of angry customers have written to the commission since Edison proposed the hike, asking the panel to deny it.

Some customers have pointed out that even as Edison has charged more for tree trimming and equipment upgrades meant to make its system safer and more reliable, its electric lines continue to spark fires.

The company now faces dozens of lawsuits from victims of the Jan. 7 Eaton fire, which killed at least 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena. Video captured the fire igniting under an Edison transmission tower. The investigation into the fire’s cause is continuing.

“Please, do not let SCE pass their damages on to their customers,” Sara Green, a Crestline resident, wrote to the commission. “Let them cut executive salaries and forgo dividends, rather than pass this on unilaterally to every customer.”

Other customers have complained about increasing outages, including the preventative blackouts the company uses to try to stop its equipment from sparking fires in hot, windy weather.

William Pilling, a resident of Rovana, a small unincorporated community near Bishop, told the commission last month that he and his neighbors were experiencing “highly frequent service interruptions.”

“This is the very definition of unreliable service,” Pilling wrote. ”We are now being asked to pay more per unit for a lower quality good.”

David Eisenhauer, an Edison spokesman, said in an interview that the company was sensitive to concerns about rising rates. “We know that rate changes are challenging for customers,” he said.

“The cost of action is high, but the cost of inaction is higher,” Eisenhauer said. The increases, he said, were needed to support “a reliable and resilient electric grid that is ready to enable the clean energy transition.”

The proposed 10% hike is the result of what the commission calls a general rate case, where the agency allows utilities to propose how much they need to spend to operate and maintain the electrical grid for the next four years.

After months of hearings and debate, an administrative law judge recommended that the commission allow Edison to spend $9.8 billion on those costs this year — 13.7% more than the amount authorized for last year, according to the release. The proposal is less than the nearly $10.5 billion that Edison had initially requested.

Under the plan, Edison will get additional increases for inflation — and customers will see corresponding hikes — for each year through 2028, the commission said.

Edison says it has increased its spending aimed at preventing wildfires, including by undergrounding lines, installing new insulated wires and increasing equipment inspections in areas with high fire risk. The company has also increased the trimming of trees and other vegetation growing near its equipment.

Eisenhauer said that since 2019 wildfire-related investments have helped drive up rates.

He added that demand for electricity is “growing faster than it has in decades” leading to higher costs. In addition, he said, “threats to grid safety and reliability are becoming more frequent and more costly.”

Since 2014, Edison’s rates have risen by 80% — more than twice the rate of inflation, the commission’s public advocates office said in a May report.

More than 860,000 Edison customers — or 19% of the total — are behind in paying their electric bills, the report said. The average unpaid balance was $957.

The proposed 10% hike is one of several increases Edison has asked the commission to approve, or that state officials have already greenlighted.

In November, customers who use little electricity, like those living in small apartments or those owning solar panels, will see higher bills when the company begins adding a $24 monthly fixed charge, according to a recent Edison release.

In return, the price per kilowatt hour will fall, leading to possible savings for those using more power. For example, a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatts per month — double the average — will see their bill decline to $355 from $380, according to the release.

The commission designed the new monthly charge, which applies to customers of the state’s three largest for-profit electric companies, so that revenue increases from the new fees match the loss from the lower price per kilowatt hour.

The new fee was created under a bill pushed through the state Legislature in 2022 by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The utilities asked for the change in how electricity was billed to encourage Californians to switch to electric-powered vehicles and home appliances.

Edison also expects to raise rates for the damages from two catastrophic wildfires that investigators found the utility’s equipment sparked.

It has asked the commission for a nearly 2% increase to cover $5.4 billion in damages from the 2018 Woolsey fire, which killed three people and destroyed more than 1,600 homes and other structures in Malibu and nearby communities.

Earlier this year, the commission agreed Edison could increase rates by less than 1% to collect $1.6 billion from customers for damages from the 2017 Thomas fire. The blaze burned more than 280,000 acres in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and left barren hillsides that helped set off mudslides in Montecito that killed 23 people. The commission must still sign off on final approval of the hike.

Eisenhauer said that under state law utilities are allowed to shift fire damages to customers if they have operated their system prudently and reasonably. He said the two fires were “largely driven by unprecedented and extreme weather events and other factors outside SCE’s control.”

In another proposal, Edison has asked the commission to raise customer bills by 2.1% to increase profits going to its investors, according to its customer notice. The plan would increase its cost of capital — the rate that helps determine how much profit it earns when it builds electric lines and other infrastructure.

The utility asked for the increase in investor profits after its stock price plummeted in January when lawyers claimed its transmission line had ignited the Eaton fire. The company told the commission that because of California’s high risk of wildfire, it needed to earn higher profits to encourage investors to continue holding its stock and to bolster its credit rating.

Despite Edison’s rapidly rising spending on insulated wires, tree trimming and other fire prevention work, its equipment sparked 178 fires last year — up from 90 in 2023.

Company executives said most of those ignitions were small fires that did not spread. The number of fires each year, they said, depends on the weather. Last year, heavy rain and then hot weather, they said, left more dried vegetation.

Edison has said its increased fire prevention work will decrease the number of times that it must shut off power to communities in hot, windy weather to stop lines from sparking fires.

Yet the company said at an Aug. 19 meeting that it expects the number of days of preventative power shutoffs to increase by 20% to 40% this year and that the number of customers subject to them could be twice as high.

Eisenhauer explained that the number of preventative shutoffs was expected to rise because the utility recently lowered the wind speed thresholds that trigger them. The company also added 47,000 more customers to areas believed to have high fire risk, which are subject to the preventative shutoffs, he said.

At the August meeting, Edison executives touted the success of the company’s fire prevention work.

In a presentation, Timothy O’Toole, an Edison board member and head of its safety and operations committee, noted the devastation the January fires caused in and around Los Angeles.

“Nonetheless, we remain very proud and confident in the progress we’ve made,” he said.

O’Toole said the utility’s fire prevention work had “created ever greater protection for our communities and our customers.”

Later in the meeting, Caroline Thomas Jacobs, director of the state Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, questioned O’Toole’s repeated praise of the company’s work to prevent fires.

“Your tone sounded defensive and justifying the progress that’s made as opposed to acknowledging the humility of what an event like the January fires I would think would bring,” she said to O’Toole.

The public can comment on the proposed hike at the meeting on Thursday or in the docket for the case.

California electric customers would pay $9 billion more to shore up the state’s wildfire fund under a last-minute deal reached behind closed doors that was introduced as legislation on Wednesday.

Southern California Edison, and the state’s two other large for-profit electric companies, had been lobbying Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, urging them to pass legislation to replenish the state’s $21-billion fund that pays for damages of utility-caused fires.

State officials have warned the fund could be wiped out by damages from the Eaton fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed a large swath of Altadena on Jan. 7.

Customers of the three utilities are already on the hook for contributing $10.5 billion to the original fund through a surcharge of about $3 on their monthly bills.

If approved, the bill amendments made on Wednesday would have customers pay $9 billion more by extending that surcharge by 10 years beyond 2035, when it was set to expire.

Under the deal, the three electric companies’ shareholders would also pay an additional $9 billion into the fund. That means the fund would increase by $18 billion if the legislation, known as SB 254, passes.

Consumer advocates and environmentalists tracking the bill said they were still trying to understand all the provisions of the 229-page bill, which had been debated in hearings in recent months, but was then significantly amended without public input. The new draft of the bill was published at 9:12 a.m. on Wednesday.

“It’s a complete gut and amend,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group. “It’s an end run around the normal legislative process.”

The complex proposal was introduced just days before the state legislature’s session ends, which means it may receive little public debate.

The session was scheduled to end on Friday, but any amendments must be public for 72 hours, which would push a vote to Saturday morning.

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, said he was disappointed that ratepayers — who are already paying the country’s second highest electric rates — would have to pay more. But he pointed to some measures that could help reduce the upward pressure on bills.

For example, utilities would be required to finance some expensive transmission projects through a lower-cost method of public financing that legislators said could save ratepayers $3 billion.

Toney said after reviewing the bill’s language his group planned to support it even though it “falls short of addressing the growing affordability crisis.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), the bill’s co-author, defended the last minute amendments, saying the legislature needed to move quickly to bolster the fund as the wildfire season begins in California.

She said many of the provisions added to SB 254, including the public financing of transmission lines, had been included in other bills that had been repeatedly been debated in public hearings.

Petrie-Norris, who is chair of the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, defended the process and said that she believed electric customers were getting “a good deal” since half the $18 billion addition into the fund would come from utility shareholders.

Also, under the plan, she said, the three utilities must spend billions of dollars more on wildfire prevention costs, which they can’t earn a profit on.

The share prices of Edison International, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric all rose Wednesday on the news.

Newsom and lawmakers created the state wildfire fund in 2019 through a bill known as AB 1054 to protect the three utilities from bankruptcy in the event their electric lines sparked a catastrophic wildfire.

Under the law’s protective measures, Edison could pay nothing or just a fraction of the damages for the Eaton fire if its equipment is found to have sparked the fire.

A representative for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The investigation into the fire is ongoing. Edison has said a leading theory is that a century-old transmission line, not used since the 1970s, somehow re-energized and sparked the blaze.

The insured property losses alone could be as much as $15.2 billion, according to an estimate released in July by state officials. That amount does not include uninsured losses or damages beyond those to property, such as wrongful death claims. A study by UCLA estimated losses at $24 billion to $45 billion.

Damages from the Palisades fire, which also ignited on Jan. 7, are not covered by the state wildfire fund. The city of Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power, a municipal utility, services the area of Pacific Palisades destroyed by that fire.

Only customers of Edison, PG&E and San Diego Gas & Electric pay to support the wildfire fund. And only those three utilities are covered by its protections.

The biggest company on The Motley Fool’s updated list of the largest utility companies is in the United States. However, it is more than just a regulated electric utility, and that sets it apart from many of its U.S. peers that have made the list of largest utility companies.

And those differences are why NextEra Energy (NEE -0.54%) could be a huge long-term investment opportunity for growth investors, income investors, and (no shock) growth and income investors. Here’s what you need to know.

What does NextEra Energy do?

NextEra Energy is two businesses in one. The core of the company is its regulated electricity operations in Florida. The Sunshine State has long benefited from in-migration, as people seek out warmer weather, lower taxes, and a comfortable retirement. The company’s Florida Power & Light operation is one of the largest regulated utilities in the United States.

Image source: Getty Images.

Being regulated gives NextEra a monopoly in the areas it serves. In exchange for that monopoly, it has to have its rates and capital investment plans approved by the government.

The usual outcome is slow and steady growth over time, as regulators try to balance customer costs, reliability, and investor returns. All in all, this is a solid, slow, and steady growth foundation for NextEra.

Most utility businesses stop there. NextEra, however, has used this foundation to build one of the world’s largest solar and wind power businesses. It is a clean-energy giant, taking advantage of the world’s shift away from power based on dirtier carbon fuels and toward cleaner and renewable sources of energy. This is NextEra’s growth engine and will likely remain so for years to come.

One very big reason is that electricity demand is shifting into high gear. Between 2000 and 2020, demand increased 9%. Between 2020 and 2040, it is expected to expand by as much as 55%.

Driving that will be artificial intelligence and data centers, where demand is expected to increase 300% over a decade. And electric vehicles are expected to push another 9,000% in demand through 2050. All in, electricity is projected to grow from 21% of end power use to 32% of end use by 2050.

NextEra is positioned well on both sides of the equation

What’s exciting about NextEra Energy is that it isn’t just in the right place at the right time in one business. It is in the right place at the right time in two businesses.

Demand increases are going to push utility growth into a higher gear, helping the company’s Florida-based regulated operations. And the broader shift toward clean energy will also be a big boost to the company’s solar and wind operation. In many cases, it isn’t just more environmentally friendly to install clean energy than to build a power plant, it is also quicker and more cost effective.

This is where things start to get interesting. The average U.S. utility has a dividend yield of a little less than 2.7%. NextEra Energy’s yield is roughly 3%. In this respect, it looks like the stock is on sale right now and providing a yield well above the market on top of that.

But NextEra Energy is also growing its business by itself, in addition to outside forces. In the second quarter of 2025, revenue jumped 10% year over year, with earnings rising a little over 9%. That’s pretty impressive for a utility, since they are normally considered boring, slow growth investments.

And there’s likely more to come, highlighting that the clean energy business has 30 gigawatts worth of power projects in its backlog. Six gigawatts of that total are directly tied to technology companies and data centers.

On the dividend front, NextEra has increased its annual payout for over three decades. And the annualized growth rate over the past decade was a huge 10% a year. Management is currently projecting 10% dividend growth through at least 2026. So not only is this a high-yield story and a growth story, but it is also an attractive dividend growth story, too.

NextEra is the biggest utility and a big investment opportunity

If you are a dividend lover, a dividend growth lover, a growth lover, or a value lover, NextEra Energy will probably look attractive to you. That’s a huge amount of investment ground being covered by the world’s largest utility. And it highlights why you might just want to buy this industry giant today to take advantage of what looks like a huge long-term opportunity in the utility sector.

Roberto Delgado and his wife were praying the rosary on the night of Jan. 7 when they heard two loud booms that shook their Sylmar home. Then came a flash of light so bright that in the dead of night they could briefly see out their window the rocks and gullies of the San Gabriel foothills behind their house.

Seconds later, Delgado said in an interview, the couple saw flames under two electric transmission towers owned by Southern California Edison — even more shocking because they had seen a fire ignite under one of those towers just six years before.

“We were traumatized,” he said. “It was almost the exact same thing.” In both fires, the family was forced to race to their car and flee with few belongings as the flames rushed through the brush toward their home, which survived both blazes.

Edison’s maintenance of its power lines is now under scrutiny in the wake of January’s devastating Eaton fire, which destroyed a wide swath of Altadena and killed 19 people. Video captured by eyewitnesses shows the Eaton fire igniting under Edison transmission towers.

A lawsuit making its way through Los Angeles County Superior Court is raising new questions about Edison’s role in the 2019 Saddle Ridge fire in Sylmar and whether the company was transparent about the cause of the blaze. The fire killed at least one person and destroyed or damaged more than 100 homes and other structures. Firefighters were able to contain the more recent Sylmar fire, called Hurst, before any homes were destroyed.

The lawyers contend that both fires were caused by the same problem: an improperly grounded transmission line running through the foothills of Sylmar that Edison failed to fix, which the company denies.

In a court filing, the lawyers included a deposition they took of an L.A. Fire Department captain who said he believed that Edison was “deceptive” for not informing the department that its equipment failed just minutes before the 2019 blaze ignited, and for having an employee offer to buy key surveillance video from that night from a business next to one of its towers.

Edison has flatly disputed the lawyers’ assertions, calling their claims about the 2019 fire an “exotic ignition theory” based on “an unproven narrative.”

Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Edison, said that the utility had complied with the requests of investigators looking into the two fires and that “there is no connection” between the incidents.

Dunleavy said Edison did not tell the fire department about the failure of its equipment in 2019 because it happened at a tower miles away from where the fire ignited. And she said it is common for any investigator to seek to obtain video that could aid in an investigation. “SCE’s investigator did not offer to buy surveillance video,” she said.

“We follow the law. Period,” she said.

Dunleavy said the company has completed tests that show the transmission line is safe. She declined to share the results and pointed to testimony by Edison’s expert in the case — Don Russell, a Texas A&M professor of electrical engineering — who said the line was properly grounded.

As for the Jan. 7 Hurst fire, the utility told regulators in a February letter that it believes its equipment “may be associated with the ignition” of the blaze. The letter said the company found two conductors on the ground under a Sylmar tower. The repairs, the letter said, included replacing equipment at several towers and more than three miles of cable.

Delgado and Perez say that on the night of the fire they heard two loud booms and a flash of light so bright they could briefly see out their window the rocks and gullies of the San Gabriel foothills.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Undergrounding of towers questioned

In dispute is whether the failure of steel equipment at the top of an Edison transmission tower on the night of Oct. 10, 2019, caused a massive power surge across the system, resulting in multiple towers becoming electrified and intensely hot.

The tower, where the steel part known as a y-clevis broke, sits just off the 210 freeway in Sylmar on land shared with a nursery. The Edison tower behind Delgado’s home where investigators say the 2019 fire ignited is more than two miles away from the nursery.

The attorneys said in court filing that Edison made a “cost-saving choice” when building the transmission line in 1970 to not include “any purposeful grounding devices” that would enable power surges to dissipate down the tower and into the earth. Instead, the company used “only insufficient concrete footings,” the lawyers said in their filing.

Mark Felling, an electrical engineer and paid expert in the case, testified that he found that the size of the cement footings under the towers along the line varied by a factor of 10. The size of the footings, he said,affects whether the tower is properly grounded.

Felling said he believed that a sudden power surge could cause some towers to become “electrified and potentially very hazardous.”

Edison has disputed that theory and said in court that the electrical surge caused by the failure of equipment at the tower by the nursery safely dispersed. The utility said it was scientifically impossible that the electrical surge caused a fire 2½ miles away.

“The undisputed material facts cannot support plaintiff’s theory that SCE caused the Saddleridge fire,” the company wrote in a motion this month, which asked the judge to dismiss the case. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Oct. 6.

Edison’s motion included a copy of the L.A. Fire Department’s investigation, which included new details of how the company responded to fire investigators days after the 2019 fire.

Delgado said his rosary and prayers were important to surviving the fires.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Failure to report power surge

L.A. Fire investigator Robert Price arrived at the dirt road leading up to the hillside transmission line where the fire had ignited the night before to see the yellow crime scene tape lying on the ground and an Edison truck driving out, Price said in his report.

Price also wrote that Edison’s equipment recorded a fault that resulted in a surge of electricity about three minutes before Delgado reported the fire to 911 at 9 p.m. But the company did not tell the Fire Department about the fault, Price wrote.

Instead, L.A. Fire Capt. Timothy Halloran learned from a news report that Sylmar resident Jack Carpenter had recorded a large flash of light on his dashboard camera at 8:57 that night as he was traveling west on the 210 freeway.

Halloran traced the flash to a transmission tower built on land used by Ornelas Wood Recovery Nursery. Halloran interviewed employees at the nursery, who told him that an Edison employee had offered to buy the surveillance footage from the nursery’s camera, according to a deposition Halloran later provided to lawyers representing the victims.

A nursery employee also had taken photos of the broken steel equipment he found at the foot of the tower, according to Price’s report. The employee told Halloran that an Edison crew came the day after the fire and cleaned up the shattered pieces.

Halloran said in the deposition, according to a June court filing, that the company’s failure to report the fault and its offer to buy the nursery’s surveillance video made him believe that the company’s actions were “deceptive.”

Price said in his report that he also saw Edison crews cleaning the towers along the line three days after the fire’s start. An Edison employee told him that the utility cleans the towers once a year but had decided to clean them that day “because they were dirty from the smoke and fire,” Price wrote.

The cleaning did not prevent fire investigators from finding burn marks at the bottom of a second tower not far from where Delgado and his wife live, which Price said may be related to the “catastrophic failure” of equipment at the tower by the nursery.

In his final conclusion on the fire, Price wrote that it was “outside my expertise” to determine whether the failure of equipment at the tower above the nursery “could cause high voltage to travel back through the conductors … and cause a fire, possibly through the tower’s grounding system” more than two miles away.

“Therefore the cause will be undetermined,” Price wrote.

Dunleavy said that Edison had notified the California Public Utilities Commission about the fire before it began cleaning up the broken pieces of equipment found under the tower at the nursery. That cleanup and the company’s repairs, Dunleavy said, were needed to “ensure safety and reliability” of the line.

She added that it was common practice for utilities to wash down equipment after a fire before the system was reenergized.

According to an L.A. Fire investigator, Edison’s equipment recorded a fault that resulted in a surge of electricity about three minutes before Delgado reported the fire to 911 at 9 p.m.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

State utility investigators find violations

Also investigating the 2019 fire in the days after its start was Eric Ujiiye at the Public Utilities Commission.

The commission’s safety staff investigates fires that may have been caused by electric lines to determine whether the utility violated safety regulations.

Ujiiye said in his report that he found that Edison violated five regulations, including failing to safely maintain its equipment at the tower by the nursery.

Even though Price’s investigation for the L.A. Fire Department stated that the cause is undetermined, Ujiiye said in his report that he believed that the failure of equipment at the tower by the nursery “could have led to a fire ignition” at the pylon more than two miles away.

The commission’s staff asked Edison to perform tests to show that the towers on the line were properly grounded. According to a written response from Edison, the utility objected to the request as “vague and ambiguous.” But the company agreed to do the tests, which would be observed by the commission inspectors.

Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the commission, said that the agency’s staff was planning to meet with Edison at the transmission line to witness the tests. However, COVID-19 pandemic restrictions delayed that meeting and the requested undergrounding tests. She said that commission staff later learned that Edison had performed similar tests soon after the fire. Those test results “sufficed,” Prosper said, and the company “was not made to re-do the tests.”

Prosper said the commission did not fine or otherwise penalize Edison for the five violations because the LAFD report said the cause was undetermined. She said company had corrected the violations.

April Maurath Sommer, executive director of the Wild Tree Foundation, which has challenged Edison’s requests to have utility customers pay for fire damages, questioned the commission’s handling of the 2019 fire.

“You would think that the Public Utilities Commission would use fines to address really egregious behavior in the hope it would deter future behavior that causes catastrophic fires,” she said.

Maurath Sommer noted that Edison has been repeatedly found to have failed to cooperate with investigators looking into the cause of devastating fires. For example, commission investigators said in a report that the utility refused to provide photos and other details of what its employees found at the site where the Woolsey fire ignited in 2018. The Edison crew was the first to arrive at the scene of the fire that destroyed hundreds of homes in Malibu. Edison argued that the evidence was protected by attorney-client privilege.

Edison’s Dunleavy said the allegation by commission investigators was later resolved. “We take our obligation to cooperate with the CPUC seriously,” she said.

Prosper of the commission said, “Public safety is, and will remain, our top priority,”

1

2

3

4

1. Fire fighters kept an eye on the wild fire burning behind Olive View Medical Center. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times) 2. A firefighting plane drops red Phos-Chek, a fire retardant, to protect Olive View Medical Center from wind driven Saddle Ridge wild fire in October 2019. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times) 3. Interstate 5 and California State Rute 14 were closed to traffic through Newhall Pass due to the Saddle Ridge fire. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times) 4. Firefighters cleared brush and mopped up a hillside along California State Highway 14 due to fire in 2019. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times)

Another fire in Sylmar

At about 10:30 on the night of Jan. 7, Katherine Twohy heard a loud crack and saw a bright flash. Edison’s transmission towers in Sylmar skirt around the edge of the Oakridge Mobile Home Park, where Twohy, a retired psychologist, lives.

“I was just coming in my back door and there was just this incredible flashing of white lights,” Twohy said. “Incredibly blue-white lights.”

She walked to her living room window where she can see two Edison towers, which are separated by more than a hundred yards. Twohy said she could see flames at the base of each one.

“The fires had made little circles around the base,” she said.

Twohy said she saw flames under the same towers the night the Saddle Ridge fire ignited in 2019.

“I thought, ‘Oh my god, it’s just like last time,’” Twohy said.

In court, lawyers representing victims of the 2019 fire have seized on Edison’s admission that its equipment may have sparked the Jan. 7 fire.

“The evidence will show that five separate fires ignited at five separate SCE transmission tower bases in the same exact manner” as the 2019 fire, they wrote in a June court filing.

Delgado’s home sits next to the dirt road leading up to the towers. The Jan. 7 fire melted his backyard fence but did little more damage. In the days after the fire, he found that some of the same Edison employees he spoke to in 2019 as a witness reappeared.

“I saw the exact same people from Edison show up,” he said. “I told them your towers almost killed my family again.”

Times staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is preparing draft legislation that would add an additional $18 billion to a state fund for wildfire victims that officials have warned could be exhausted by January’s deadly Eaton wildfire.

Under Newsom’s plan, customers of the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities would pay another $9 billion to supplement a state fund created in 2019 that holds $21 billion.

The other $9 billion would come from shareholders of Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric, according to a draft of the proposal.

“We continue to work with the Legislature on policy that will stabilize California’s Wildfire Fund to support the recovery of wildfire survivors and to protect California utility consumers — even as wildfires become bigger and more destructive due to climate change,” Newsom’s office said in a statement Thursday.

Customers of the three utilities are already on the hook for contributing half of the original $21 billion fund through a surcharge of about $3 on their monthly bill. The proposal would have customers pay $9 billion more by extending that surcharge by 10 years beyond 2035, when it was set to expire.

“We’re very disappointed to be at a point where there is even talk of more ratepayer money going to the wildfire fund,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the the Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group.

Utility executives also criticized the plan, which was reported earlier by Bloomberg, for proposing that their shareholders pay additional amounts into the fund.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, told Wall Street analysts on a conference call that the company has told Newsom and lawmakers that any legislation to shore up the fund “would not have a shareholder contribution.”

“We will need to see the balance of an ultimate package,” Pizarro said.

Newsom’s plan has been circulating with legislative leaders and others and would require approval of the state Senate and Assembly. Under the draft proposal, the $18 billion would go into a new “Continuation Wildfire Fund.” The new fund would not be created until the administrator of the state’s original wildfire fund determines additional funds are needed.

Newsom and lawmakers created the $21 billion fund in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy in the event their equipment sparks a devastating fire.

Toney said said state officials told him then that there was a 99% chance the fund would last 20 years. Now it could be wiped out by a single fire.

He said he believes there needs to be limits on the liabilities that the fund will pay for. “We can’t go back every three or four years and put more money in,” he said.

Since the fund was created, electric customers have also paid $27 billion for tree trimming and other work aimed to prevent wildfires, which is fast driving up electric bills, Toney said.

Despite that spending, fires sparked by Edison’s equipment leaped from 90 in 2023 to 178 in 2024.

The investigation into the Eaton fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Altadena, is continuing. Video captured the fire igniting on Jan. 7 under an Edison transmission tower.

Pizarro has said a leading theory is that a dormant Edison transmission line, not used since 1971, somehow became electrified and sparked the blaze.

The insured property losses alone could be as much as $15.2 billion, according to an estimate released by state officials last week. That amount does not include uninsured losses or damages beyond those to property, such as wrongful death claims. A study by UCLA estimated losses at $24 billion to $45 billion.

Southern California Edison’s plans to compensate Eaton fire victims for damage were met with skepticism Thursday from lawyers representing Altadena residents, but drew tentative support from others who say the initiative could help shore up the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund.

The utility announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program this week, saying it would be used to quickly pay victims, including those who were insured, while avoiding lengthy litigation.

The announcement comes as state officials consider ways to shore up the state’s fund to compensate wildfire victims, amid fears that it could be fully exhausted by Eaton fire claims. Fees that attorneys receive as part of victim settlements could further strain the fund.

State Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas) said Edison’s new program may have some merit as potentially “a more efficient way” than lawsuits to make sure victims are fairly compensated.

He pointed out that lawyers were “coming across the country to represent” Eaton fire victims. “Are they really getting their money’s worth when they pay 30% to these lawyers?” Stern asked.

Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, said Edison’s program had the potential to reduce costs that otherwise must be covered by the wildfire fund, which was established in part by a surcharge on the bills paid by customers of Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

“If Edison is determined to be the cause of the fire, anything they can settle early reduces the costs that otherwise would be paid later,” Toney said.

The utility has released few details of how the program would work, leaving victims who are already coping with uncertainty with more questions. And lawyers who had been seeking to represent victims in lawsuits against Edison were quick to urge caution.

“Without admitting fault or providing transparency, Edison is asking victims to potentially waive their rights,” said Kiley Grombacher, one of dozens of lawyers involved in litigation against Edison for the Jan. 7 wildfire that killed 19 and destroyed 9,000 homes in Altadena.

According to Edison, the program would be open to those who lost homes or businesses as well as renters who lost property. It would also cover those who were harmed by smoke, suffered physical injuries or had family members who died.

“People can file a claim even if they are involved in active litigation,” said Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman.

Dunleavy said the company would be releasing more information soon, including on eligibility requirements.

At a Thursday meeting in Sacramento of the Catastrophe Response Council, which oversees the wildfire fund, officials said they were creating criteria that Edison must follow in designing the program, including having measures to prevent fraud and clear eligibility standards.

Sheri Scott, an actuary from Milliman, told the council that the firm estimated that losses from the Eaton fire ranged from $13.7 billion to $22.8 billion.

“We heard from our guest today that we might run out of money very quickly,” said Paul Rosenstiel, a member of the council appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

He urged state lawmakers to consider changing the law that created the fund so that less money was at risk of flowing to third parties who aren’t fire victims.

PG&E created a program to directly pay victims of the 2021 Dixie fire, which burned more than 960,000 acres in Northern California. It created a similar program to compensate victims of the 2022 Mosquito fire, which burned nearly 77,000 acres in Placer and El Dorado counties.

PG&E said it offered Mosquito fire victims who lost their homes $500 per square foot and $9,200 per acre for those whose lots did not exceed 5 acres. To aid in rebuilding efforts, victims who decided to reconstruct their homes were eligible for an additional $50,000.

Lynsey Paulo, a PG&E spokeswoman, said in an email that the company paid nearly $50 million to victims of the Dixie fire through its program. That money went to 135 households, she said.

“PG&E’s program was designed to provide claimants with resources to rebuild as quickly as possible and help communities recover,” she said.

Richard Bridgford, a lawyer who represented Dixie fire victims, said that PG&E’s offer was lower than victims won through lawsuits, and that only a fraction of those eligible for the PG&E program decided to participate, he said.

”Victims have uniformly done better when represented by counsel,” said Bridgford, who now represents victims of the Eaton fire.

Edison’s announcement of its program came as fire agencies continue to investigate the cause of the Eaton fire. Edison said in April that a leading theory is that a dormant transmission line, last used in 1971, somehow was reenergized and sparked the blaze. The company says the new compensation program “is not an admission of legal liability.”

“Even though the details of how the Eaton Fire started are still being evaluated, SCE will offer an expedited process to pay and resolve claims fairly and promptly,” Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said in a news release. “This allows the community to focus more on recovery instead of lengthy, expensive litigation.”

The utility said it had hired consultants Kenneth R. Feinberg and Camille S. Biros, who had worked on the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, to help design the program.

If Edison is found responsible for the fire, the $21-billion state wildfire fund would reimburse the company for all or most of the amounts paid to victims through the new program or through lawsuits and insurance claims.

Half of the fund’s $21 billion came from charges to electric bills of customers of Edison, PG&E and SDG&E. The other half was contributed by shareholders of those three companies, which are the only utilities that can seek reimbursements from the fund.

Seeking to avoid lengthy litigation, Southern California Edison said Wednesday it will offer to compensate Eaton fire victims directly for damages suffered, even though it has yet to formally concede that its equipment ignited the blaze on Jan. 7.

Edison said it planned to launch a Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program this fall that would be open to those who lost homes, businesses or rental properties in the fire that killed 19 people and destroyed more than 9,400 homes and other structures in Altadena. It would also cover those who were harmed by smoke, suffered physical injuries or had family members who died.

“Even though the details of how the Eaton Fire started are still being evaluated, SCE will offer an expedited process to pay and resolve claims fairly and promptly,” Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said in a press release. “This allows the community to focus more on recovery instead of lengthy, expensive litigation.”

The utility said it had hired consultants Kenneth R. Feinberg and Camille S. Biros, who had worked on the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, to help design the program.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against Edison in the wake of the Jan. 7 fire that videos captured igniting under a transmission line in Eaton Canyon. The cause is still under investigation, but Pizarro has said a leading theory is that an idle Edison transmission line, last used in 1971, somehow became re-energized and started the blaze.

An attorney who represents fire victims expressed skepticism of the plan, saying it could lead to reduced compensation for fire victims.

“In the past, the utilities have proposed these programs as a means for shorting and underpaying victims,” said attorney Richard Bridgford said. “Victims have uniformly done better when represented by counsel.”

Edison said the program would be designed to quickly compensate victims, including those who were insured. People can apply with or without an attorney, it said. The program is expected to run through 2026.

“The architecture and timing of the SCE direct claims program will be instrumental in efficiently managing funding resources, mitigating interest costs and minimizing inflationary pressures so funds can address actual claims and fairly compensate community members for their losses,” Pizarro said.

If Edison is found responsible for the fire, the state’s $21 billion wildfire fund is expected to reimburse the company for all or most of the payments it makes to victims. Brigford said he believed the wildfire fund would be enough to cover the Eaton fire claims.

“They are trying to make people panic so they don’t get adequate representation,” he said.

Others are concerned that the state wildfire fund is inadequate. Officials at the Earthquake Authority, which administers the wildfire fund, said in documents released in advance of a Thursday meeting that they fear the costs of the Eaton fire could exhaust the fund.

State officials plan to discuss what can be done to lengthen the life of the fund at the meeting.

Edison said more information on eligibility and other details of the compensation plan would be released in the coming weeks.

More than 30 million Californians across the state could see their electric bills go up to pay for the devastating Eaton fire, as officials scramble to shore up a state wildfire fund that could be wiped out by damage claims.

One early estimate places fire losses from the Eaton fire at $24 billion to $45 billion. If Southern California Edison equipment is found to have sparked the blaze on Jan. 7, as dozens of lawsuits allege, the damage claims could quickly exhaust the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund.

“Everyone is concerned about this,” said Michael Wara, director of Stanford’s climate and energy policy program, who was involved in the fund’s creation. “If we need to put more money into the fund, where will it come from?”

The wildfire fund was created to shield the state’s three big utilities from bankruptcy in the event one was found liable for massive fire damages.

At a meeting last month, members of the state Catastrophe Response Council, which oversees the fund, were told that Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders were being urged to extend a monthly surcharge on electric bills beyond its planned expiration in 2035. The fee, called the non-bypassable charge, adds roughly $3 a month to the average residential bill.

“They are asking the people of California to put more money into the fund,” said council member Paul Rosenstiel, a former investment banker and Newsom advisor, according to a transcript of the meeting. “Some of them are asking for an extension of the non-bypassable charge.”

The fee is paid by customers of the state’s three big for-profit utilities — Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Rosenstiel didn’t respond to a request for comment. At the meeting, he didn’t say who was lobbying the governor and lawmakers to extend the surcharge to ratepayers.

California utility executives have told their investors they have been talking to Newsom and legislative leaders about shoring up the fund. PG&E executives have said that they have asked that no new money come from utilities or their shareholders, which would likely leave electric customers to pay more.

“We continue to advocate that we don’t think there is a good case that investors should contribute to the fund,” Patti Poppe, PG&E’s chief executive, told Wall Street analysts in an April conference call.

A Siller Skycrane removes Southern California Edison’s tower 208 from a hillside in Altadena in May. The idle transmission tower, suspected of sparking the Eaton fire, will be examined at a lab.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of SoCal Edison’s parent company Edison International, was asked in a recent call with Wall Street analysts about the prospects for legislation that would bolster the wildfire fund.

“Clearly the governor’s office is engaged, as are our legislative leaders,” he said, adding that he was “certainly very encouraged by the level of diligence and engagement that I’m seeing.”

Asked to elaborate, Kathleen Dunleavy, a SoCal Edison spokeswoman, said the utility was not seeking a specific solution to questions of the fund’s durability.

“Our focus is to convey the importance of a strong wildfire fund,” she said. “We are not being prescriptive in how to achieve that.”

This year, the electric bill surcharge is expected to add $923 million to the fund, according to California Public Utility Commission records. If the fee was extended an additional 10 years, it would require customers of the three utilities to pay an additional $9 billion into the fund.

That doesn’t sit well with consumer advocates, who point out customers are already on the hook to contribute half of the $21-billion fund, while also paying higher bills to cover costs such as undergrounding and insulated electric wires.

Those measures are intended to make the electric system safer. Yet despite spending billions of dollars last year on wildfire mitigation, the number of fires sparked by its equipment jumped from 90 in 2023 to 178 last year.

Altadena homes lie in ruins after the Eaton fire.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

“We think ratepayers have more than done enough,” said Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN, a consumer group in San Francisco. “My position is that ratepayers should not pay another penny.”

Rosenstiel said at the May meeting that Newsom and legislative leaders were also being asked for the state’s general fund, which pays for schools, healthcare, prisons and other government operations, to contribute to the fund that protects utilities from wildfire claims.

The governor’s office declined to answer questions and said Newsom’s schedule didn’t allow time for an interview.

Newsom has a seat on the Catastrophe Response Council. He was a no-show at the group’s most recent meeting, sending a designee in his place.

Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), the chair of the Assembly’s Utilities and Energy Committee, acknowledged that lawmakers are concerned about the fund but said that they are still considering remedies.

“All options are on the table and are being considered and evaluated,” she said. “I have certainly not arrived at a solution yet.”

The cause of the Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes, businesses and other structures in Altadena, remains under investigation.

Edison CEO Pizarro has said a leading theory is that an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon was reenergized and sparked the blaze. Video captured flames erupting under an Edison transmission tower on the night of the fire.

If Edison’s equipment is found to have started the inferno, the state’s wildfire fund is expected to cover most of the cost of damages over $1 billion, under a 2019 law that was passed after PG&E went bankrupt from its liability for the deadly 2018 Camp fire.

The first $1 billion in damages from the Eaton fire would be covered by insurance that electric customers paid for.

The total cost of the fire in Altadena won’t be known until dozens of lawsuits make their way through the courts, which could take years.

A February study by UCLA economists Zhiyun Li and William Yu estimated that the fire caused $24 billion to $45 billion in property damages and capital losses, or the cost to replace what was destroyed.

Officials at the California Earthquake Authority, which manages the wildfire fund, told members of the Catastrophe Response Council in a May memorandum that the authority had “undertaken a significant project to evaluate alternatives for extending the durability of the Wildfire Fund in the face of potential large losses.”

To determine how to strengthen the fund, authority officials said they had rehired consultants who worked with Newsom’s office in 2019 to create the fund. The four firms will be paid $4.5 million, which the fund will cover, they said.

Among the consultants is Guggenheim Securities, the investment banking arm of Guggenheim Partners. Another subsidiary of Guggenheim Partners owns stock in the state’s three big utilities.

A recommendation to tap utility customers to replenish the fund, instead of the utility companies themselves, would likely have a big impact on company share prices.

“They [Guggenheim] certainly have a vested interest in the financial success of the utilities,” Toney said.

A spokesman for Guggenheim Securities said the stocks owned by the sister company didn’t pose a conflict, saying it “maintains a robust conflict management program, including strict information barriers between its investment banking department and the rest of Guggenheim Partners.”

Wara at Stanford said if Edison is found responsible for the Eaton fire, the wildfire fund would cover what insurers paid to victims and also pay for property damage not covered by insurance.

For example, families who lost their homes but received insurance payouts lower than the value of their property could seek the balance from Edison, he said. The utility would then seek to recover those sums from the wildfire fund.

The other deadly Los Angeles County inferno that ignited on Jan. 7, the Palisades fire, is not covered by the wildfire fund because Pacific Palisades is served by the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, a municipal utility. The fund only covers blazes ignited by equipment owned by the state’s three biggest investor-owned utilities.

“They have their insurance and that’s it,” Wara said of Palisades fire victims.

At its meeting last month, the state Catastrophe Response Council was informed that insurance claims from the Eaton fire have totaled roughly $15 billion so far.

Adding to the damage bill is the potential cost of lawsuits. The possibility that the fund will pay out large amounts for Eaton fire damages has led to dozens of lawsuits being filed against Edison, even before the official cause has been determined.

Families of Altadena residents who died have filed wrongful-death suits. Edison is also facing lawsuits from L.A. County and other local governments for damages, including to public infrastructure such as water systems. Residents living outside the fire’s borders have filed suit, saying they were harmed by lead and other toxins in the smoke.

If a court found Edison negligent in maintaining its equipment, Wara said, victims could ask for compensation for pain and suffering, which would escalate the cost.

“Then the wildfire fund is out of money,” Wara said.

Pizarro has said that Edison is “committed to a thorough and transparent investigation.”

“Our hearts go out to everyone who has suffered losses,” he said.

The 2019 law that created the wildfire fund, known as AB 1054, greatly limited what Edison would have to pay for any of the claims. The company has told its investors that its maximum liability would be $3.9 billion.

The three utilities are asking legislators to ensure that state law continues to protect them and their shareholders, even if the $21-billion fund runs out of money.

Since the January fires, Edison, PG&E and Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, have each spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby in Sacramento, according to required regulatory reports they filed for the first three months of the year.

A PG&E lobbyist reported taking Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris to a $267 dinner at Paragary’s, a bistro in Sacramento, on Feb. 3.

Petrie-Norris said the dinner was with Carla Peterman, a former state public utilities commissioner who is now a top PG&E executive. Petrie-Norris said they talked about a planned March hearing on electricity affordability and didn’t discuss the wildfire fund.

The next month, a PG&E lobbyist took Dee Dee Myers and Rohimah Moly, two of Newsom’s top staff members, to the upscale Prelude Kitchen & Bar, which is a short walk from the state Capitol.

Willie Rudman, a spokesman for the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, said the wildfire fund wasn’t discussed at the meal. Instead it “was a general meet and greet,” Rudman said, where the governor’s staff and PG&E executives “discussed opportunities for future collaboration.”

PG&E declined to answer questions. Lynsey Paulo, a PG&E spokesperson, said in a statement that the utility’s lobbying expenses were paid with shareholder funds and not money from customers.

“Like many individuals and businesses, PG&E participates in the political process on behalf of our customers and company,” Paulo said.

The California Public Utilities Commission failed to abide by state law when it slashed financial incentives for residential rooftop solar panels in 2022, environmental groups argued before the California Supreme Court Wednesday.

The commission’s policy, which took effect in April 2023, cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending power they don’t need to the electric grid by as much as 80%.

In arguments before the court, the environmental groups said the decision has stymied efforts to get homeowners and businesses to install the climate-friendly panels.

The commission violated state law, the groups argued, by not considering all the benefits of the solar panels in its decision and by not ensuring that rooftop solar systems could continue to expand in disadvantaged communities.

More than two million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California — more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal set by a 2018 law of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.

On the other side of the courtroom battle were lawyers from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, arguing that the commission’s five members, all pointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, had followed the law in making their decision.

In briefs filed before Wednesday’s oral arguments, the government lawyers sided with those from the state’s three big for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mica Moore, deputy solicitor general, said at the hearing in downtown Los Angles that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in “a cost shift” of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This was raising electric bills, she said, especially hurting low-income electric customers.

The credits for the energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid are valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commissioners have voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.

The environmental groups and other critics of the commission’s decision have argued that there is no “cost shift.” They say that the commission failed to consider in its calculations the many benefits of the rooftop solar panels, including how they lower the amount of transmission lines and other infrastructure the utilities need to build.

“The cost shift narrative is a red herring,” argued plaintiff’s attorney Malinda Dickenson, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Working Group and the Protect Our Communities Foundation.

Moore countered by saying the commission doesn’t have to consider all the possible societal or private benefits of the rooftop panels.

For example, even though the rooftop panels could result in conserving land that was otherwise needed for industrial scale solar farms, the government lawyers argued in their brief, the commission was not obligated to consider that value in its calculation of the amount of costs the rooftop panels shift to other customers.

The government lawyers also said the commission had created other programs beyond the electric bill credits to help disadvantaged communities afford the solar systems.

The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.

During the oral arguments, the seven justices focused on a legal question of whether a state appeals court erred when it ruled in January 2024 against the environmental groups and said that the court must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.

“This deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission’s work,” the appeals court concluded in its opinion.

The environmental groups argue the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission’s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.

Moore told the seven justices that the appeals court had made the correct decision to defer to the commission.

Not all justices seemed to agree with that.

“But we’re pretty good about figuring out what the law says,” Associate Justice Carol Corrigan said to Moore during the proceeding. “Why should we defer on that to the commission?”

The justices will weigh the arguments made by both sides and issue a decision in the next 90 days.

The big utilities have for decades tried to reduce the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities’ sale of electricity.

On another front, the state’s three big utilities are now lobbying in Sacramento to reduce credits for Californians who installed their panels before April 15, 2023. The commission’s decision in 2022 left the incentives in place for those panel owners for 20 years after their purchase.

Early this year, Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), a former Southern California Edison executive, introduced a bill that would have ended the program for all solar owners who installed their systems by April 2023 after 10 years. In face of opposition and protests by solar owners, Calderon amended the bill so it would end the program — where credits are valued at the retail electric rate — only for those selling their homes.

Calderon said the bill would save the state’s electric customers $2.5 billion over the next 18 years.

On Monday, Roderick Brewer, an Edison lobbyist, sent an email to Assemblymembers, urging them to vote for the bill known as AB 942. “Save Electricity Customers Billions, Promote Equity,” he urged in the email.

The Assembly voted 46 to 14 to approve the bill on Tuesday night, sending it to the state Senate for consideration.

The timing of the vote surprised opponents of the bill. They expected a vote late this week because of rules that allow more time for bills to be reviewed after they are amended. Calderon amended the bill late Monday.

Nick Miller, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, said Calderon had asked for a waiver of the rules so that it could be voted on Tuesday night.

Such waivers, Miller said, are “not uncommon.”