As Southern California Edison faces scrutiny over the role its equipment may have played in sparking the deadly Eaton fire, the utility giant is facing some pushback from ratepayers over plans to seek another increase in electricity rates.
The California Public Utilities Commission is expected to make a decision this summer on Edison’s request to raise rates by 10% in order to pay for wildfire mitigation and cover “reasonable costs of its operations, facilities [and] infrastructure,” the request filing said.
If approved, the rate hike would mean an $18 average increase in monthly electrical bills for Edison’s 15 million customers.
Although Edison filed its rate request before the fires, the timing doesn’t sit well with some Edison customers, especially for survivors of the Eaton fire that destroyed swaths of Altadena during a series of historical Southern California wildfires in January.
The Eaton fire killed at least 18 people and burned more than 14,000 acres. The cause of the blaze has not been determined, but the company has acknowledged that it may have been sparked by a faulty dormant power line operated by Edison.
“There’s definitely a great deal of resentment and anger,” said Eaton fire survivor Rossana Valverde, who lived 300 yards from the Edison transmission tower where the fire may have began. “I think Edison has a tremendous amount of nerve to ask for more money right now when they won’t even take responsibility.”
Consumer advocates contend that Edison customers already are paying high enough bills.
“All rate increases have a significant effect on consumers because you’re paying more for something that you paid less for before,” said Lee Trotman, spokesman for the Utility Reform Network. “Edison is going to ask for the moon, and we’re going to say, ‘no, dial it back.’”
Already this year, the CPUC voted to allow Edison to raise electricity rates to cover $1.6 billion in payments it made to victims of the devastating 2017 Thomas wildfire. Investigators found that the utility’s equipment sparked the blaze, one of the largest in California history.
Edison’s residential customers pay more than $300 annually on average to support wildfire-related costs. The average electric bill for Edison customers has climbed to $176 a month.
Edison’s request, known as a general rate case that was originally filed in 2023, would affect electricity costs through 2028. After the initial 10% hike, rates would rise 3% each year for three years, equal to about $6 more per monthly bill in each year, said Edison spokesperson David Eisenhauer.
The utility plans to spend about $1.4 billion of its annual capital on wildfire mitigation, Eisenhauer said, including moving power lines underground and line hardening, which can reduce damage during major weather events.
Edison forecasts a 5.6-gigawatt increase in demand over the next 10 years, equivalent to adding a state the size of Idaho or Maine to the existing electric grid.
The utility will need funds to prepare for that expansion, as well as to add ongoing safety improvements, prevent cyberattacks and move toward a cleaner energy supply, according to Eisenhauer.
“We recognize that any rate increases are challenging for customers,” Eisenhauer said. “Keeping customer bills manageable is a top priority for us, so we’re constantly evaluating how we can reduce costs.”
Some have called out recent bonuses given to Edison executives in light of the company’s role in multiple fires, The Times reported. Despite its safety efforts, the utility’s equipment sparked 178 wildfires in 2024, up from 90 the year before, The Times reported.
Even before the wildfires, Edison customers were voicing their displeasure at the prospect of paying higher rates.
“Please deny SCE’s request to raise rates yet again,” wrote Carole S of San Bernardino County on a CPUC public comment forum. “SCE should trim their belts and prove they can be financially responsible instead of just throwing money away,” she wrote, declining to share her last name publicly.
“Huge profits shouldn’t be made from a public utility that everyone needs,” wrote Sharon K of Fullerton, who also declined to give her last name. “Need more money to do the work? Stop paying multi-millions to the CEO in salary and perks,” she wrote.
In an earnings call last month, the chief executive of Edison’s parent company said he was optimistic about receiving a proposed decision on the rate hike from the CPUC within the first half of 2025. The final decision could come as soon as 30 days later, he said.
“The general rate case will support SCE’s commitment to providing electric service that is reliable, resilient and ready for customers’ needs,” Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said on the call.
Pizarro also acknowledged on the call that Edison was likely to suffer monetary losses as a result of its possible role in the Eaton fire. Investigations into the cause of the fire are ongoing and have not concluded that Edison’s equipment sparked the blaze, Pizarro said, but investigators have not identified any other possible sources of ignition.
“Absent additional evidence” and “in light of pending litigation, it is probable that Edison International and Southern California Edison will incur material losses in connection with the Eaton fire,” he said.
Early estimates put the cost of damage from the Eaton fire at $10 billion, but experts said that number would grow. The total estimated economic loss caused by the January wildfires in Southern California has surpassed $250 billion.
If Edison is found responsible for starting the Eaton fire, the utility would be financially protected by an emergency fund California lawmakers created in 2019 in part to protect utilities from bankruptcy.
The wildfire fund was established after Pacific Gas & Electric sparked the deadly Camp fire in 2018 and subsequently filed for bankruptcy.
According to Edison International Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigatti, the maximum the company might pay is $4 billion.
Edison International had a valuation of around $30 billion before January’s wildfires, but has since lost about a third of that value.
The company’s stock closed Wednesday at $56.94, down 29% so far this year.
Times staff writer Melody Petersen contributed to this report.
