The Report We Waited 18 Months For

The findings are expected. The timing is…curious.

After months of relative silence, the 55 page CAL FIRE report arrives conspicuously right after Governor Newsom’s office came under intense scrutiny for its attempts to make last minute amendments to SB 254 behind closed doors and its attempt to retroactively limit the non economic damages available to wildfire survivors—including the tens of thousands of people impacted by the Eaton Fire.

At the Dear Newsom press conference just days ago, I asked a simple question.

Why now?

Why, after more than eighteen months, was there suddenly urgency to try to retroactively change a state senate bill that had already been voted on and passed in a shroud of secrecy? Today, we have another piece of that puzzle.

I’ve only begun reading the report (because of course, after more than eighteen months, it would be released on the final day of my vacation) but no doubt, I’ll have much more to say once I’ve had the opportunity to read every page. What I’ve seen so far is worth talking about.

After their “rigorous” investigation, CAL FIRE concluded:

“After 18 months of thorough review of all evidence, alongside retained electrical and metallurgical experts, the investigation concluded that the cause of the wildfire conflagration was due to the electrical arcing events that took place on the out-of-service Southern California Edison (SCE) tower.”

For Altadena, this is hardly a revelation. It’s confirmation. Confirmation of what thousands of us have known since January 8, 2025.  Even Southern California Edison was no longer disputing that its equipment was associated with the fire’s ignition.

Responding to the report, SCE acknowledged that it had previously recognized “it was likely our equipment was associated with the ignition of the Eaton Fire.”

Edison’s reps also stated:

“We have taken our potential role in the start of this fire seriously from the very beginning.” And that it “continues to support the community as it recovers.”

I’ll leave it to each of you to decide how those words land after more than eighteen months. (Insert a heavy eye roll here).

But for a report we’ve waited a year and a half to receive, what stands out almost as much as what it says…is what it doesn’t.

Where is the word negligence?

At first, that omission concerned me. Then I found myself wondering whether the report even needed to use the word. If Southern California Edison’s equipment ignited the fire, and they agree their equipment was the likely culprit, the obvious question becomes – How?

This report arrives after eighteen months of questions about why power remained energized during an active Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) event, whether vegetation management met SCE’s own required standards, whether equipment maintenance met the required standards, and whether Southern California Edison exercised the level of care required under some of the most dangerous fire weather conditions imaginable, that notably were not unprecedented, and had been in the forecast for days.  

Those are the questions survivors have been asking since January 2025. They’re also the questions that will continue to be examined through the legal process.

Then there are the redactions.

The report is riddled with black blocks. Why is information (beyond, of course, the identifying information of specific individuals) so heavily redacted, including all of the Penal Code, Public Resources Code, Health & Safety Code, Public Utility Code and General Order violations?

Don’t get me started on the errors.

Page 4 of the report states the number of victims of the Eaton Fire was 18. The official death count is actually 19, but who’s counting. And that’s just four pages in.

Survivors deserve better. Californians deserve better. Americans deserve better.

After all this time, we get another report full of omissions and errors? How much confidence should survivors have in these institutions that are supposed to work for and protect us? How much confidence should Californians have? How much confidence should the American public have?

After eighteen months of investigation, code violations, electrical experts, metallurgical experts, interviews, evidence collection, and undoubtedly significant public resources and tax dollars, survivors deserved a report that inspired confidence, not whatever this is.

Public trust depends on transparency. It depends on accuracy. It depends on the confidence that investigations are complete, independent, and free from outside influence. When a report of this magnitude still contains factual inaccuracies, unanswered questions, omissions and redactions, that confidence is inevitably shaken.

If anything, this report reinforces exactly why Altadena for Accountability fought so hard for an independent investigation by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

If the official accounting still leaves this many unanswered questions, survivors have every reason to insist on an investigation that is completely transparent and independent of the agencies whose actions are also under scrutiny.

We’ve learned over the past eighteen months that accountability is rarely volunteered. It has to be demanded.

Which brings us back to where we started. The timing.

We don’t know why this report was released this week. We don’t know if that timing has anything to do with what’s happening with SB 254, the ongoing litigation, or Southern California Edison’s continued efforts to encourage survivors to resolve claims through its voluntary settlement program.

What we do know is that all of these events are unfolding at the same time and that’s an observation that deserves scrutiny.

At the very moment CAL FIRE officially concludes that Southern California Edison’s equipment ignited the Eaton Fire, but stops short of stating negligence whilesurvivors are also being encouraged to resolve their claims through Southern California Edison’s voluntary settlement program.

At the same time, Sacramento is considering SB 254, legislation that would retroactively reduce the value of many wildfire claims by limiting non economic damages.

Those are facts.

It’s also true that many survivors have declined Southern California Edison’s voluntary offers because they believe those offers fall dramatically short of the true value of what they have lost.

I can’t tell you why all of those things are happening simultaneously but they are clearly worth examining together.

The difference between accepting an early settlement and fully understanding your legal rights can be life changing for families who have already lost everything.

Non economic damages are not a windfall.

They represent the losses no insurance policy can replace.

The trauma. The grief. The destruction of community. The loss of safety and security. The loss of mental and physical health. The loss of jobs, careers and businesses. The sleepless nights. The milestones that will never again be celebrated in the homes where they belonged. The marriages strained. The families and children children that remain displaced. The history and culture that was erased in a matter of hours.

No legislation should retroactively reduce the value of those losses. No survivor should feel pressured to accept less than the law provides before fully understanding their rights. No one gets to rewrite the rules after the fact. Every survivor deserves full and fair compensation under California law. That money belongs to the people who lost everything. Not the for profit utility enjoying record profit and record executive compensation whose equipment CAL FIRE concluded ignited this fire.

Here it is.

Read it for yourself. Ask your own questions. Don’t stop asking them.

If you haven’t already, please take two minutes to sign the letter at DearNewsom.org.

Governor Newsom still has the opportunity to reject any attempt to retroactively reduce the legal rights of wildfire survivors.

Tell him to stand with the people who lost everything not the powerful interests seeking to limit accountability and their financial responsibility. Every survivor deserves every dollar the law allows. No exceptions.

⸻

These are simply my first impressions after an initial review of the report. There will likely be more to discuss about everything else this document raises.

This report answers one critically important question and it raises many more. But one thing is already abundantly clear. We are not going to get accountability unless we demand it. We are not going to get transparency unless we insist on it. And we are not going to receive the compensation fire survivors deserve unless we fight for it.

That fight isn’t over.

In many ways, it’s just beginning again.