CA: WILDFIRE SURVIVORS PROTEST UTILITY BAILOUT PROPOSAL
Click here for updates on this story
SACRAMENTO, California (KCRA) — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push to limit how much private utility companies pay for causing devastating wildfires is fueling debate between wildfire victims and firefighters as California’s legislative session approaches its final days.
The proposal, which critics have called a “bailout” for PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison, has yet to be put in writing. Newsom’s administration argues that the current wildfire liability system is flawed, warning of potential utility bankruptcies and the depletion of the state’s wildfire liability fund.
Los Angeles-area wildfire victims traveled to Sacramento to voice their opposition to the plan. The group peacefully demonstrated outside of the governor’s mansion as Newsom hosted a reception for state lawmakers Monday night. They also hosted a press conference on the situation Tuesday morning.
The group expressed concerns about Newsom’s proposal to limit how much utilities pay victims, attorneys, and insurance companies if they cause a fire in the future.
“Governor Newsom’s team keeps telling us, ‘everybody stand down, this doesn’t impact you!'” said Joy Chen, leader of the group Every Wildfire Survivor Network, in an interview with KCRA 3. “Today we are the victims, tomorrow, any Californian could be of a system that continues to enable three companies to keep burning down communities.”
Newsom’s administration has defended the proposal, saying the current system slows down payments to victims due to disputes between utilities, insurance companies, trial attorneys, and hedge funds.
“Here’s my response to those who don’t want change: it’s untenable. Status quo is not going to work. It’s not going to work for victims,” Newsom said at an unrelated press conference in the Bay Area last week.
The California Professional Firefighters union announced its support for the plan this week, citing changes made by the governor to address how the proposal could impact local governments. The initial version of the governor’s proposal would have severely limited how much local governments get to rebuild when their property is destroyed. Those changes to the proposal have not yet been made public.
In a letter to Newsom, the union wrote, “The stability of the state’s utilities, insurance plans, and recovery funds must all be balanced with ensuring that wildfire victims and impacted communities are able to recover and rebuild.”
The firefighters’ union did not respond to requests for an interview before the publication deadline. None of the investor-owned utility companies have commented on the proposal.
Former Democratic Assemblyman Chris Holden, who helped create California’s current wildfire liability system in 2019 after PG&E caused the Camp Fire, expressed concerns about the timing of the proposed changes.
“We really shouldn’t be here,” Holden told KCRA 3 in an interview.
“What is untenable is that the utilities continue to find themselves starting fires and burning down communities, they need to be held accountable for them,” he said.
When asked if the system needs change, Holden added, “I think there’s always [a] need to look at it and make it stronger. To do it at the 11th hour at the end of session is not the time.”
Sources close to the situation Tuesday afternoon said Democrats in the California Senate have introduced a counterproposal. Unlike Newsom’s plan, the Senate’s proposal would allow insurance companies to continue suing investor-owned utility companies to recoup their losses.
Other elements of the Senate’s plan include limiting utility companies’ return on investment for wildfire maintenance and pushing the California Public Utilities Commission to cap future utility rate increases at the rate of inflation.
California’s legislative session ends Aug. 31st. Because state law requires a 72-hour public review period for proposed state laws, lawmakers and the governor have until Friday to put a negotiated plan into legislation.
Please note: This story was provided to CNN Wire by an affiliate and does not contain original CNN reporting. This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.
