Editor's Correspondence: Wildfire fund should be reimbursed by Edison's shareholders rather than its consumers
Article: Southern California Edison Opposes Wildfire Fund, Advocates for Polluters Pay Act
Southern California Edison (SCE) is facing opposition to Governor Gavin Newsom's plan to raise $18 billion for the state's wildfire fund, primarily due to SCE's reluctance to have its shareholders contribute financially to the fund.
The utility's CEO, Pedro Pizarro, has communicated to lawmakers that any legislation to shore up the fund "would not have a shareholder contribution," implying that only ratepayers (customers) or other sources, rather than company shareholders, should bear the cost. This stance has been met with criticism from ratepayer advocates and some consumer voices, who argue that shareholders profit significantly while customers are asked to foot the bill for wildfire damages linked to utility equipment.
Regarding the funding of the wildfire fund, SCE prefers costs to fall on California ratepayers rather than shareholders. However, some argue that the governor should focus more on expanding rooftop solar adoption as a proactive wildfire prevention tool and to lower consumer bills. The Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act, a legislative proposal intended to make major polluters financially responsible for climate-related damages, including those caused by wildfires, is also contested by utilities and insurers due to potential increased liabilities.
John Schaefer, a local resident from Santa Rosa, argues that Newsom's plan to pay for fire damage is shortsighted because it doesn't address the root causes of the Eaton and other fires. Schaefer suggests that the big polluters are all of us with gas cars, but California needs new revenue to pay for past and future fire damage. He does not mention the profits of Southern California Edison or the compensation of its CEOs. Instead, he urges lawmakers to care about those who breathe the air and their grandchildren who will suffer more if the polluting path continues.
SCE has launched a $925 million fund to compensate victims of the Eaton Fire, signaling acknowledgment of its potential liability, but insists existing wildfire funds (intended to shield utilities from bankruptcy) still must support claims related to such disasters. The writer finds it unacceptable that SCE's shareholders' profits could be reduced to replenish a fund for fire damage caused by Edison's equipment.
In a letter to the editor, Schaefer also criticizes SCE for causing the Thomas and Woolsey disasters and possibly the Eaton fire. He believes that making electricity more expensive discourages investment in heat pumps, electric vehicles, and other clean technologies. The writer concurs, finding it unjust for customers to pay for SCE's past and potential misdeeds.
| Issue | Southern California Edison (SCE) Stance | Support/Opposition Context | |-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Funding Wildfire Fund (shareholder contribution) | Opposed (shareholders should not pay) | Prefers costs on ratepayers; shareholders resist losses | | Rooftop Solar as Prevention | SCE is criticized for not emphasizing this | Advocates suggest expanding solar reduces fire risk and energy costs | | Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act | Utilities likely oppose increased liabilities from this Act | Proposed to hold polluters accountable but contested by utilities and insurers |
- The available opinion among some citizens, like John Schaefer from Santa Rosa, criticizes Southern California Edison for opposing the wildfire fund, arguing that the utility's shareholders should contribute to mitigating wildfire damages linked to their equipment.
- California's Governor Gavin Newsom and Southern California Edison (SCE) have different views on the funding of the wildfire fund, with SCE advocating for costs to fall on California ratepayers, not shareholders.
- Various individuals and ratepayer advocates have expressed dissent towards SCE's stance on the wildfire fund, arguing that shareholders profit significantly while customers are asked to bear the costs.
- Some propose that the focus of state politics should shift from requiring ratepayers to fund the wildfire damage to addressing the root causes of the fires, such as promoting rooftop solar adoption as a proactive wildfire prevention tool.
- The Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act, a legislative proposal aimed at making major polluters financially responsible for climate-related damages, has received opposition from utilities and insurers, including Southern California Edison, due to potential increased liabilities.
