Fire survivors blast changes to liability
Brad Sherwood, a father whose Santa Rosa home was demolished in October’s Tubbs Fire, said Wednesday he’d rather think about which countertops to choose for his family’s new home, or when his 6- and 8-year-old children will be able to return to their school.
“Instead, we’re talking about policy being developed in Sacramento that directly affects current and future wildfire survivors, without the input of my local government,” he said.
Sherwood joined other Wine Country wildfire survivors and officials from three
North Bay counties to condemn a measure they say is winding its way through the Legislature at the 11th hour to shift liability from utility corporations to homeowners. Specifically, survivors and county supervisors said, a portion of the bill would make it easier for utilities, such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to delay compensating victims though lengthy court proceedings and strip homeowners of their current liability protections.
Utility providers have backed this section of the bill, arguing that the status quo can unjustly cost companies billions regardless of whether their actions were negligent.
On Wednesday, Sherwood pointed to PG&E’s pledge to help rebuild the affected communities.
“That is their slogan,” he said. “Can someone please tell me how developing this policy behind the scenes brings anyone together?”
Last week, SB901 moved to a conference committee, where it can be used as a vehicle to amend the state’s wildfire laws. The legislation comes amid an onslaught of lawsuits against utility companies. State investigators have now blamed PG&E power lines and equipment for causing 16 of last year’s Northern California blazes, which killed 45 people and destroyed 8,800 buildings.
If the suits are successful, analysts estimate that the company’s payouts could run up to $15 billion over the next few years.
In response, utilities have launched a lobbying campaign in Sacramento to change liability laws, fearing that increasingly destructive wildfires could devastate their finances.
SB901, sponsored by state Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, would order the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt standards for when the companies must switch off their power lines to prevent sparking during windstorms, a step that PG&E and Southern California Edison resisted until last year.
But the bill also includes language more favorable to the utilities. One section recommends refining legal standards to allow courts to determine the liability of electric companies “when they have acted reasonably in installing, maintaining, and operating their transmission systems.”
This recommendation, if it becomes law, would affect a legal standard known as “inverse condemnation,” which entitles property owners to compensation by utilities companies for fire damage, regardless of whether the company is found negligent.
Cara Martinson, a legislative representative for the California State Association of Counties, said its bottom line is that legislators shouldn’t be discussing liability at this stage.
“Right now, we need to be focused on talking about safety requirements for utilities, and how to be better prepared and become more resilient as a community,” she said.
James Noonan, a spokesman for PG&E, called the policy “flawed and in urgent need of reform.” He said California is one of the only states in which courts have applied inverse condemnation in such a way.
“This means that if a utility’s equipment is found to have been a substantial cause of the damage in the event like a wildfire — even if the utility has followed established inspection and safety rules — the utility may be liable for property damages and attorneys’ fees associated with that event,” he said.
Noonan added that the policy “needlessly threatens critical future energy investments in a safer and cleaner energy system that all our customers and communities want and deserve.”
Graham Knaus, executive director for the association of counties, said the bill touches on several complex topics and a liability model that’s been in place for decades.
“There’s clearly a lot to talk about and issues to work through, so that we have a system that makes sense, to avoid disasters going forward,” he said. “That’s not something that can be done in the last few weeks remaining in the session.”
Paul Payne, a spokesman for Dodd, noted that nothing in the section of the bill dealing with liability actually changes state policy.
“They are merely issues that may be discussed as part of the conference committee process,” he said in an email.
Sherwood said he’s working with a developer to build a new home on the same plot of land. He said the process has been mostly seamless, and he’s had no complaints with the planning department.
“The issue we have had is insurance, the lack of coverage, being under-insured and having to fight for every dollar out of our policy,” Sherwood said. “Now hearing what’s going on in Sacramento, this just adds salt to the wounds.”
“Right now, we need to be focused on talking about safety requirements for utilities.”
Cara Martinson, California State Association of Counties