You may have read the recent Los Angeles Times story, “‘This fire could have been prevented’: How utilities fought removal of old power lines,” by Melody Petersen. This story erases the line between investigative and advocacy journalism. It’s disappointing that the Times continues to seek opportunities to drive headlines with sound bites and draw premature conclusions while the investigation into the Eaton Fire remains ongoing.
Petersen’s article suggests a simplistic, conspiratorial narrative that fails to consider several key facts about idle utility lines, such as the legitimate reasons for the lines remaining in place and the technical complexities and safety concerns of line removal.
SCE inspects and maintains idle lines and energized lines in compliance with regulations.
Petersen also misrepresents the rulemaking process that established the current regulations for idle lines. The 2001 rulemaking discussed in the story followed the same procedures all rulemakings do. The details of this process are easily accessible to any reporter:
- The Commission will open a rulemaking to revise the CPUC’s rules, regulations and general orders; this type of proceeding usually involves many stakeholders.
- Rulemakings are overseen by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and can involve several steps, including the submission of written proposals, comments, workshops and written briefs.
- A facilitator, often chosen by the CPUC and paid by utilities, may oversee the process.
-
After assessing all evidence, the ALJ will issue a proposed decision, which is also subject to further comment and is ultimately voted on by the full Commission.
The Times’ guidelines read: “A fair-minded reader of Times news coverage should not be able to discern the private opinions of those who contributed to that coverage,” and “Our coverage should avoid simplistic portrayals.” The article does not meet these standards.
SCE continues to cooperate fully with the investigation into the cause of the Eaton Fire and, as we’ve shared publicly, our equipment may have been involved. However, the official investigation remains ongoing, and conclusions have not been made. By jumping to its own conclusions about SCE’s motives and business decisions, ignoring the facts and failing to consider the billions of dollars SCE has invested in wildfire mitigation, the Times has misled, misinformed and ultimately failed its readership.
SCE remains committed to safely providing reliable, affordable power to five million customers throughout Southern California, and helping California reach its long-term emissions-reduction goals through expanded electrification and the continued development of clean energy sources.
Subscribe
