Only a few weeks after Eaton Fire Deady has ignited nearly three EDison transmission towers from southern California, the public service has discreetly changed an internal policy on how crews should die from electric pylons to idle.
The change attracted little attention at the time – mainly due to the fact that the first suspicions concerning the cause of the fire focused on two active transmission laps at Eaton Canyon.
But in recent weeks, speculation on the origin of the fire has increased to a third inactive transmission tower which has not been used for more than five decades.
Despite these revelations, the southern California Edison – and the State Commission responsible for regulating public services – refused to disclose the changes to Edison on the way in which he bases the inactive transmission towers, or what prompted the company to do the days of change after his crews were authorized to inspect the flank of the hill where the Blaze broke out.
California Public Utilities Commission has ignored the questions and refused a request for public files from the Los Angeles Times concerning Edison’s actions. The demand could help to highlight what the civil servants learned during their inspections, and which could have caused hell that killed 18 people.
The agency has not mentioned any exemption in the refusal of the request, which is required under California Public Records Act. Instead, the Commission said that reactive documents were not available for the moment and have told Times to submit its request in nine months. An agency spokesman did not answer questions to explain why.
However, California Public Records Act does not allow agencies to delay disclosure for months. Instead, this forces them to respond within 10 days of obtaining a request for public files.
The law allows agencies to request extensions, but indicates that they should not last more than 14 days, with the exception of “unusual circumstances”.
Loretta Lynch, the former CPUC president from 2000 to 2002, said documents should be published.
“They should be completely available,” she said in an interview. “They should submit these reports, if not, why do we have the CPUC to start?”
Lynch, who has openly criticized the Commission for its close ties to public services, said that companies like Edison often count on the CPUC to keep the public documents. Often she said, companies will ask that the documents that are of public interest be labeled as “commercial confidential” to prevent them from being released.
The CPUC rejected the request for Times files on March 10. The Times asked the agency to reconsider its decision four days later, noting that the agency has not mentioned any reason to retain the documents. The request for the legal division of the Commission, as well as several calls and messages to its media relations department, asking for clarity on the reasons why the files have been refused – or why no reason has been cited as required by the law on state public files – has remained unanswered for weeks.
Times contacted the CPUC to comment on Friday for this article. The CPUC informed the Times on Monday that the request for a document had been reopened for examination.
Edison also refused to publish the document publicly. The company also refused to answer specific questions about the manual, such as what has encouraged change, or what change would imply with regard to inactive tricks such as that which is now examined in the Eaton fire survey.
An Edison spokesperson called him an internal document.
“After examining the manual, we realized that the language was not as clear as possible for the landing of the steel structures of the inactive network and, in the spirit of making a continuous improvement, we have made changes to make it clearer,” said the spokesperson, David Eisenhauer.
The transmission towers must be set to the ground – or carefully connected to the earth – to securely dispel energy from lightning strokes and tension overvoltages.
Another Edison spokesman opposed Thursday that the manual was characterized as “secret”, saying that the company had not labeled it secret and had submitted to the State Commission.
“This document was submitted to the CPUC and, if something, reflects an approach committed to improve security standards,” said spokesman Kathleen Dunleavy.
As a private company, Edison is not required to make the document public. However, lawyers who continued the company for its possible role in Eaton’s fire criticized the decision, arguing that it was going against the company’s promise of transparency. The document could shed light on the company’s response to disaster, they say.
“Here, they suggested that the company had made changes in earth practices that could be at the heart of this case, but refuse to tell anyone what it did,” wrote Eli Wade-Scott, partner of Edelson PC, in an email. “If SCE has failed to properly implement these inactive lines that have been seated there for fifty years, it was a disaster that was waiting to perform – and they will have to respond to a jury.”
Edison is now faced with numerous fire prosecutions and the possible role of his electrical equipment. Investigators from the County Fire Service of Los Angeles and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have not yet determined an official cause of the fire, and Edison has since deployed teams and workers to inspect and test the equipment overlooking Eaton Canyon.
But several law firms have hired their own team of electrician investigators and engineers to investigate the cause and search for clues. Their attention has been focused in recent weeks on the inactive tower and an exposed ground thread of about four feet in the steep hill.
“The tower was not properly founded,” said Alexander Robertson, lawyer for the Robertson and Associates LLP firm, who brought an action against Edison. “This cable is supposed to be buried deep in the ground.”
Although the tower and line have not been used since 1971, Edison managers and lawyers are considering the possibility that the tower and inactive lines could have been somehow revitalized, sending electricity through the equipment and increasing the possibility that the exposed land wire could have triggered fire.
In a file of February 6 with the CPUC, Edison noted that it was investigating the possibility that its equipment could have caused the fire, including “the extent to which this line or its setting could be linked to the cause of the fire”.
In a footnote, the deposit indicates that the company has changed the way it drives the inactive lines and its manual – in particular sections referring to the landing of the tricks of idle.
“The SCE has taken immediate measures to further strengthen and standardize its basic practices with regard to inactivity lines, including updating SCE transmission operations and maintenance policies and procedures,” said the footnote.
An Edison spokesperson refused to say what caused the changes, or if they were linked to the inspections of his three laps of the company after the fire.
Eisenhauer refused to answer questions as to whether the changes in the language of the manual have led to changes in the way the crews were now to melt the inactive transmission towers.
Terrie Prosper, spokesperson for the CPUC, confirmed to the Times that Edison updated its transmission and maintenance operations policies on January 27, 20 days after the start of the fire and 11 days after the Edison teams had access to inspect the region. The changes, Prosper said, were provided to the Commission.
The changes have updated a four -month version of the manual describing maintenance and procedures for the company. This previous version was dated September 27, 2024, said Prosper in an email.
No other modification made to the Edison manual was noted in the February 6 file, and Edison officials refused to say if it was the only change made to the manual.
In a recent interview with The Times, the director general of Edison International, Pedro Pizarro, said that it was possible that the equipment of the company caused the fire.
“It is certainly possible,” he said. “I undertook to be transparent with the public as we continue to investigate.”
Michael Aguirre, a former federal prosecutor who continued the CPUC to publish files, said it was a constant battle to have the publication files of the regulatory agency.
“There is a secret cover on the documents that take place towards the CPUC, which never reaches the public domain,” he said.
Documents are often labeled as owners, he said, and the agency has made exemptions in the law on public state files, similar to government branches such as the Governor’s office.
An Edison spokesperson would not say if the document was labeled as holding proprietary information or “commercial confidential”, preventing his release.
Dozens of prosecutions brought against Edison have raised a certain number of theories on how the electrical equipment could have been involved in the triggering of the fire, including the possibility of arc, and the Edison allegations did not maintain the vegetation in the region, which increases the risk.
It is not known if, or how, the inactive tower could have been under tension, but Robertson, the lawyer, said that the investigators were considering the possibility of induction – where a line is supplied by a parallel line in progress.
California Daily Newspapers
