In California, many residents have noticed advertisements urging them to contact state representatives to “fix our wildfire problem to make California more affordable.” These ads are linked to discussions involving fire survivors, consumer advocacy groups, and the insurance industry. They claim that Governor Gavin Newsom is making a last-minute effort to help utilities reduce their financial responsibility for wildfires.
The legislative session is set to resume soon, and Newsom’s staff is discussing wildfire recovery challenges and rising risks with state lawmakers. Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez has not confirmed if upcoming legislation will limit compensation for fire victims’ pain and suffering, eliminate insurance companies’ rights to recover wildfire costs, or cap attorneys’ fees, as some groups allege.
The Every Fire Survivor’s Network and Consumer Watchdog, along with the insurance industry, argue that these proposals could shift recovery costs onto insurance policyholders. They criticize the “gut-and-amend” tactic used to fast-track bills by drastically altering existing ones. This approach is seen as aligning with Wildfire Victims First, a utility-funded campaign without support from wildfire survivors.
Joy Chen, leader of the Every Fire Survivor’s Network, emphasized the need for transparent government actions. In a public letter, Chen accused Newsom of previously helping utilities shirk wildfire responsibilities. California’s major utilities—San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and Pacific Gas & Electric—exert considerable influence in the state through donations and extensive lobbying efforts.
Discussions between the governor’s office and lawmakers are informed by an April report from the California Earthquake Authority, tasked with studying equitable burden sharing from natural catastrophes. Senate Bill 254 allows utilities to pass additional wildfire costs to consumers, provided they exceed a wildfire fund established in 2019. This fund, initially $21 billion, is equally funded by utilities and through monthly surcharges paid by Californians.
Nathan Click, representing Wildfire Victims First, urged lawmakers to adopt the recommendations from the SB 254 report. These include increasing the utility surcharge to bolster the wildfire fund, although concerns persist about prioritizing financial intermediaries over actual wildfire victims.
Jennifer Gray Thompson, from After the Fire, initially supported the coalition but withdrew due to the lack of wildfire victim group involvement. Analysis by Consumer Watchdog reveals significant financial contributions from utility companies to many organizations supporting the campaign.
Some state lawmakers, like Senator Ben Allen, stress the importance of holding responsible parties accountable for wildfire recovery costs. Senator Sasha Renee Perez expressed frustration over seemingly rushed legislative proposals. She opposes any legislation that limits non-economic damages for fire survivors, highlighting personal connections to victims.
Insurance industry representatives express concern that not recovering wildfire costs from utilities could result in higher premiums for policyholders. Denni Ritter of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association argues against making insurance policyholders liable for utility shareholders’ financial woes.
Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, questions the motives of the Wildfire Victims First campaign, primarily funded by utility shareholders. The lack of communication from utilities about the campaign’s intentions remains a point of concern for the insurance industry.