The Los Angeles Times: Edison Sets the Record Straight

Have a look at the recent letter we sent to the Los Angeles Times in response to an article about Southern California Edison.

Sent August 23, 2025

I would like to discuss our expectations for how the Los Angeles Times and our company can work together productively going forward. Our goal, which we expect is shared by the paper, is balanced, factual reporting that leads to informed readers — many of whom are our customers who live and work in the communities we proudly serve. Unfortunately, at present, your readers are not benefiting from reporting that reflects that objective.

Melody Petersen’s Aug. 22, 2025, article, “Lawsuit alleges Edison hid its role in 2019 Sylmar wildfire,” misplaced or omitted important responsive points, conveyed misleading information, and failed to engage expert sources who would have provided balance and helpful context for your readers. In the process, she continues to advance bias against our company, which often appears to be driven by plaintiffs’ counsel. 

We respectfully request that the following issues with this most recent article be appropriately addressed:

1. The reporter deliberately misplaced responsive quotes in a seeming attempt to mislead readers and paint our company in a false light.
   
   Of the following issues, the most concerning is the fact that Ms. Petersen seemed to purposely misplace quotes that had a specific meaning, rendering them meaningless and removing them from their context. For example, she asked the following question both in email and over the phone in advance of the story’s publication:
   

   Another fire investigator said he arrived the morning after the fire at the dirt road leading up to the transmission tower where the blaze ignited. He found that the yellow crime scene tape that the police put in place was on the ground. He saw an SCE truck on the road above. Does Edison have to abide by what the police say even if the towers the company owns are beyond the tape?

   My response to Ms. Petersen’s outlandish, but serious, allegation was: “We follow the law. Period.” However, she left her question about whether Edison abides by police direction hanging and used my response inappropriately 10 paragraphs higher in the story as part of our response to a separate allegation. Hence, my statement became meaningless, and the article could leave readers with the impression that this allegation involved potentially illegal activity.
   
   Another relocated quote had been provided regarding Ms. Petersen’s allegations that an SCE investigator tried to buy surveillance footage. I was unequivocal with my factual statement that this did not occur.
   
   Why were these quotes not used in the context in which they were provided? There do not appear to be any good answers. Those that come to mind are biased storytelling or sloppy journalism. Neither is acceptable.
   
   
2. The reporter misled readers even when presented with formal state regulatory filings that provide needed context for her reporting. 
   
   In a bullet at the top of the article, Ms. Petersen wrote: “In a deposition, an L.A. Fire Department captain said he believed Edison was ‘deceptive’ for not informing the department that its equipment failed just minutes before the fire ignited.” In the following bullet, she paraphrased me saying that our company “did not need to report the equipment failure,” implying that there was no report made. She repeated this allegation again later.
   
   Only more than halfway through the article did Ms. Petersen broadly mention that our company “notified the California Public Utilities Commission about the fire.” She did this despite me providing information about our Electric Safety Incident Report, which was filed within the required timeframe. I also shared with Ms. Petersen our 315 letter, which provided additional details. Ms. Petersen’s overplaying of her source’s allegation and downplaying of our responsive information misled readers.
   
   
3. The reporter’s lack of basic knowledge about the electric power industry — and her refusal of our offers to help her develop that understanding — leads to misleading reporting.
   
   In the most recent story, Ms. Petersen at points confused terms ”undergrounding” and ”grounding." She even titled a section of the article, “Undergrounding of towers questioned.” Utilities do not underground towers. Later, she referred to “undergrounding” tests requested by the California Public Utilities Commission. The Commission had requested “grounding” tests.
   
   This is concerning because I specifically corrected Ms. Petersen about her misuse of these terms during a phone conversation on Aug. 21. In fact, I encouraged her to speak with expert industry sources or conduct a simple internet search to familiarize herself with the definition of grounding and grounding practices.
   
   Regrettably, this is part of an ongoing pattern. In another article on Aug. 1, she misused the terms “abandoned” and “idle” — as you and I have discussed — in “This fire could have been prevented: How utilities fought removal of old power lines,” despite receiving a clear explanation of these industry terms several times. These are not words used solely by our company; they are standard terms in our industry. As you are aware, the Los Angeles Times decided to stick with the misused term and declined to correct.