On January 7, fierce winds swept through the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, prompting residents in Altadena to urgently call Southern California Edison, urging the utility to cut power to prevent electrical equipment from igniting a wildfire. Just minutes after 6 p.m., witnesses reported seeing flames erupt under an Edison transmission tower in Eaton Canyon, marking the beginning of a devastating fire that ultimately destroyed over 9,000 structures and claimed 17 lives.
While the precise cause of the fire is still under investigation, evidence has emerged suggesting that Edison’s equipment may have contributed to the disaster. The company acknowledged that its power lines in the vicinity of Eaton Canyon experienced a momentary surge in electrical current around the same time the fire ignited.
One of the key questions surrounding the incident is why Edison delayed shutting off power in the area, especially given the warnings it had received about the risks associated with power outages. Public records reveal that less than three years prior, Edison had been informed that shutting off power could overload other transmission lines, leading to overheating and potential sparks. Despite this knowledge, necessary repairs and upgrades to mitigate these risks were repeatedly postponed, leaving the system vulnerable.
Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Edison, cautioned against making hasty conclusions about the cause of the fire. "We are exploring all possibilities, including the potential involvement of our equipment," she stated, adding that the utility does not yet know what triggered the blaze.
Investigators and experts have scrutinized the circumstances of the fire, particularly the decision-making process of Edison. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which oversees electricity transmission in the state, had conducted studies indicating that preemptively cutting power to certain transmission lines, including those running through Eaton Canyon, could lead to a significant load impact of 900 to 1,000 megawatts. Such a surge could cause remaining energized lines to overheat and potentially ignite fires.
Despite being aware of these risks, Edison opted to cut power only to a limited number of lower-capacity distribution lines near Eaton Canyon, leaving larger transmission lines energized until well after the fire had started. This decision has drawn criticism, with experts highlighting that the utility had been warned about the potential negative consequences of such power shutoffs.
Robert McCullough, an energy analyst with extensive experience studying wildfire incidents linked to electrical companies, noted that Edison was aware of the risks associated with its power management decisions. He emphasized that the failure to implement necessary upgrades to the transmission lines before the fire left the system at greater risk.
In the aftermath of the fire, more than 40 lawsuits have been filed against Edison, with plaintiffs seeking accountability for the devastation caused by the blaze. Attorneys representing fire victims are examining the records uncovered by The Times to better understand the utility’s actions leading up to the disaster.
As investigations continue, the implications of the Eaton fire extend beyond immediate accountability. Experts warn that the decisions made by Edison during extreme weather conditions highlight the critical need for robust infrastructure and proactive measures to prevent future disasters. The stakes are high, as any misstep in managing power during such volatile conditions can have catastrophic consequences.