Plaintiffs' lawyers partially blame utility commission for wildfires

Along with utilities failing to maintain vegetation surrounding power lines, plaintiffs' attorneys say years of toothless regulation from the California Public Utilities Commission has led to an increase in wildfires and the subsequent litigation that, according to them, is the only meaningful deterrent to lax safety precautions.

In a lengthy response Tuesday, communications director Terrie Prosper said the commission aggressively investigates utility related wildfires and works to ensure that utilities are mitigating the chances of wildfires occurring.

However, plaintiffs' attorney Alexander Robertson IV of Robertson & Associates LLP said after filing the latest wildfire lawsuit against Southern California Edison this month, "The CPUC has done a horrible job policing utilities on their wildfire mitigation measures. The CPUC has a number of regulations and general orders that utilities are supposed to follow ... but it's not until things go horribly wrong does CPUC conduct an investigation."

Robertson said that unlike the commission, the plaintiffs' bar spends millions of dollars investigating, reconstructing and reverse engineering wildfires to find their root cause. "Unfortunately, the plaintiffs' bar has really become the de facto enforcer of these regulations. It's something the CPUC should be doing in the first instance."

On behalf of the commission, Prosper countered in an email, "If a utility's infrastructure is found to have caused or contributed to a wildfire, the CPUC assesses whether the utility was in compliance with all rules and regulations. When the CPUC determines that a utility was operating outside of our rules and regulations, we take action.

"For example," Prosper wrote, "in May we imposed $1.937 billion in penalties against Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the largest penalty ever assessed by the CPUC, for the utility's role in the catastrophic 2017 and 2018 wildfires."

In the most recent wildfire suit, Richard Passmore, a Southern California Edison meter reader, said after four months of retirement the utility he worked for 36 years caused a fire that burned his house down.

Igniting Sept. 6 in the Angeles National Forest, the Bobcat Fire burned 115,000 acres and destroyed 87 homes, according to the complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in early November. Richard Passmore v. Southern California Edison, 20STCV42356. (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed Nov.5, 2020).

Passmore, along with 80 other homeowners, said Edison negligently failed to trim trees and clear vegetation that came into contact with energized electrical conductors and failed to de-energize its electrical circuits during the red flag warning that preceded the fire.

Edison has yet to file its reply. But common in many utility fire defenses is the notion that climate change and environmental factors are responsible for the growing number of wildfires. Ten of the 20 most destructive California wildfires have occurred since 2015, according to Edison.

In a recent news release entitled the "New Normal" Edison says a vicious cycle of increased climate change emissions have, among other things, led to the increase in wildfires.

"With the inestimable costs in loss of life and property already so apparent -- and the predictable threat of climate change looming -- the time to act is now," the press statement reads. "We cannot ignore the threat posed to our lives, our property and our environment. SCE is committed to fighting climate change and reducing the risk of wildfires."

While agreeing that climate change contributes to the size and longevity of the fires, plaintiffs' attorneys say aging equipment, poor vegetation maintenance and years of lax regulation are the factors that actually cause fires to ignite.

Northern California attorney Mike Danko, who was involved in litigation arising from the Camp Fire in Butte County -- the 2018 fire that resulted in PG&E being convicted of 84 counts of manslaughter -- said a cozy relationship between the commission and utilities has allowed them to fall so far behind in terms of vegetation maintenance that it will take years for safety standards to be where they should be.

"[Utilities] have found that as you look at the profit and loss scenario, it has been historically cheaper to allow a certain number of fires to occur, put them out and deal with the financial consequences, than it is to prevent them entirely in the first place," Danko said in a recent phone interview. "Because of things such as global warming, such as the bark beetle kill, and other management issues and the deep hole they've allowed themselves to fall into with regard to vegetation management, now when the fire starts, gosh darn it, they can't put them out."