Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit against California Edison (SCE) and its parent company, Edison International, arguing that electrical equipment caused the Eaton Fire.
The filing states that the Eaton Fire “burned more than fourteen thousand acres” and “damaged or destroyed more than ten thousand structures,” going on to allege that there is “clear evidence from video footage, photographs, and witness statements that the Fire was caused by EDISON’s electrical equipment.”
Plaintiffs assert that the utility company had a “duty to properly maintain and operate its electrical infrastructure, including any equipment that has been decommissioned, yet failed to do so” and was obligated to “utilize public safety power shutoffs when weather conditions made it unsafe to keep its equipment energized and to otherwise ensure that its electrical equipment operated in a safe manner but failed to do so.”
“The Eaton Fire was not the result of an ‘act of God’ or other force majeure. The Eaton Fire was ignited by sparks from high-voltage transmission lines, distribution lines, appurtenances, and other electrical equipment within EDISON’s utility infrastructure that ignited surrounding vegetation,” the lawsuit reads. “Despite its knowledge of extreme fire risk, EDISON deliberately prioritized profits over safety and that prioritization and EDISON’s design, construction, and maintenance of its utility infrastructure was a substantial factor in igniting the Eaton Fire.”
County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison, who filed the lawsuit, said she is “committed to seeking justice for the Altadena community and the taxpayers of Los Angeles County.”
SCE previously acknowledged in a letter to California’s Public Utilities Commission that videos and data suggest a “possible link” between the Eaton Fire and the company’s equipment. The company asserted that the association between its equipment and the flames has not been confirmed.
“The Eaton Fire brought immense challenges and heartbreak to our community. SCE is undertaking a careful and thorough investigation and does not know what caused the ignition of the fire,” the company wrote. “While information and data have come to light, such as video from external parties of the fire’s early states, suggesting a possible link to SCE’s equipment, SCE has not identified typical or obvious evidence that would confirm this association.”
