Wildfire survivors from the Eaton Fire and other recent California wildfires rallied this week to send Governor Newsom a direct message: any changes to utility wildfire liability need to happen in public, through the normal legislative process, not negotiated behind closed doors in the final weeks of the legislative session.
The survivors’ concern is not just hypothetical. This sort of thing has happened before.
The SB 254 Precedent
SB 254, was a bill originally introduced to protect wildfire survivors. But last September, in the closing 48 hours of the legislative session, it was rewritten into a 231-page measure that instead increased protections to California’s investor-owned utilities. The rewrite came so late that the Legislature had to extend its session to satisfy the state constitution’s 72-hour public review requirement. Some legislators have since said they voted on the bill without fully understanding its contents.
SB 254 extended the state Wildfire Fund and gave utilities access to lower-cost financing, along with the ability to raise capital before pending wildfire litigation is resolved. Supporters framed this as necessary to keep the state’s largest utility solvent enough to pay claims. Survivors and their advocates have characterized it differently: a bailout, arrived at without the transparency the process is supposed to guarantee.
What’s Reportedly on the Table Now
Consumer Watchdog and survivor groups say that the Governor’s office is developing a new proposal, potentially to be introduced late in this year’s session, that would go further. Reported elements include caps on utility liability for equipment-caused fires, limits on attorney’s fees and victim payouts, and restrictions on insurers’ ability to recover losses from utilities after a utility-caused fire.
No text of any proposal has been made public. That is itself part of the survivors’ objection: decisions of this magnitude, determining who bears the cost when utility equipment starts a fire that destroys a community, should not be shaped in private negotiations and dropped into a bill with days left before a vote.
The “Wildfire Victims First” Coalition
A group calling itself Wildfire Victims First has been running ads and mailers across the state positioning itself as a survivor-advocacy organization. Public Utilities Commission funding records reviewed by Consumer Watchdog indicate that roughly 70% of the coalition’s membership is utility-funded, with PG&E, Southern California Edison, and Sempra having contributed close to $7 million. The three utilities have also collectively directed roughly $162,000 to the Governor’s campaign committees over the course of his statewide career, more than any other elected official examined in the disclosure records cited by Consumer Watchdog.
None of this means the funding disqualifies the group’s arguments on the merits. It does mean that policymakers, reporters, and survivors are entitled to know who is actually paying for the message before weighing it against the accounts of people who lived through these fires.
Why This Matters for Anyone With a Pending Claim
Eighteen months after the Eaton Fire, a substantial share of survivors remain displaced, and many report exhausting savings and retirement accounts while insurance and utility claims remain unresolved. Legislative changes to liability standards, fee caps, or subrogation rights don’t just affect future fires. Depending on how they’re drafted and when they take effect, they can affect compensation for fires that have already happened and claims that are already in the pipeline.
That’s the practical reason for watching this closely, regardless of where one comes down on utility rate impacts or grid investment. Survivors currently pursuing claims, whether against PG&E, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, or another utility, have a direct stake in whether any new framework is negotiated in public, with adequate time for review, or introduced as a late amendment with a compressed timeline for comment.