Energy Law | Government Regulations| Politics
Introduction: DOJ Lawsuit Alleges Utility Co. Negligence
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed two closely watched lawsuits against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging that the utility’s negligence was directly responsible for two devastating wildfires that tore through public lands in California in recent years: the Eaton Fire in January 2025 and the Fairview Fire in September 2022.
Filed on September 4, 2025, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the twin complaints seek more than $77 million in total damages—covering fire suppression costs, natural resource destruction, and long-term environmental rehabilitation in national forests.
The litigation signals the federal government’s increasing willingness to pursue utilities for wildfire-related damages and represents a legal flashpoint for climate-driven disaster accountability.
The Allegations: Faulty Infrastructure, Predictable Disaster
At the heart of both complaints is the assertion that Southern California Edison failed to maintain its power lines and equipment, despite full awareness of heightened wildfire risk across the region—especially during periods of high wind and drought.
Eaton Fire (January 7, 2025):
- Sparked in the Angeles National Forest, northeast of Pasadena.
- Burned nearly 8,000 acres, killed 18 people, and destroyed thousands of structures.
- DOJ alleges the fire originated from arcing and sparks emitted by SCE’s transmission lines.
- Edison reportedly detected a fault in its infrastructure minutes before the fire ignited.
- Damages sought: $40 million+.
Fairview Fire (September 5, 2022):
- Originated in the San Bernardino National Forest, near Hemet.
- Caused two deaths, destroyed 44 structures, and burned 14,000 acres.
- DOJ claims a sagging SCE power line made contact with a Frontier Communications cable, igniting dry brush below.
- Damages sought: $37 million.
The lawsuits frame the fires as “entirely preventable” had SCE exercised due diligence in maintaining and inspecting its power infrastructure.
A Federal Case for Negligence
The DOJ’s filings assert claims for negligence, trespass, and violation of federal fire laws, among others. Government lawyers argue that Southern California Edison:
- Knew or should have known that its infrastructure posed a wildfire hazard;
- Failed to implement adequate inspection and vegetation management protocols;
- Ignited fires that damaged public lands, ecosystems, and endangered species habitats;
- Imposed tens of millions of dollars in costs on federal firefighting agencies and land managers.
The lawsuits reflect a legal trend: shifting financial and legal accountability for wildfires onto private utilities, particularly where the risk is foreseeable and unaddressed.
“But for Edison’s negligence, these fires would not have started,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli. “We want Edison to change the way it does business before the next fire season begins.”
Not Their First Fire
Southern California Edison has faced wildfire litigation before—most notably settling federal claims for the 2020 Bobcat Fire for $82.5 million. In that case, investigators concluded the blaze also began in the Angeles National Forest, originating from SCE equipment.
In addition to these new federal cases, Los Angeles County, Pasadena, and Sierra Madre have filed parallel lawsuits against the utility over the Eaton Fire, bolstering the narrative of widespread municipal and federal concern over SCE’s fire safety practices.
Moreover, state and federal investigations into the Eaton Fire have raised troubling new allegations, including the possibility that a “zombie” transmission line—a decommissioned but still energized power line—may have emitted sparks that ignited the blaze. Aerial footage allegedly shows flashes near the tower before ignition.
Legal Implications: What’s at Stake
This case has the potential to set far-reaching precedents for utility liability in an era of increasing climate disasters.
| Legal Issue | Implications |
|---|---|
| Negligence & Infrastructure Liability | Could redefine duty of care standards for utilities during high-risk weather. |
| Federal Cost Recovery | Reinforces the government’s right to recoup suppression and remediation costs. |
| Environmental Damage Claims | Asserts strong federal interest in protecting national forests and resources. |
| Punitive Potential | While not explicitly stated, case may lead to pressure for broader settlements. |
If successful, the DOJ’s claims could trigger enhanced regulatory oversight, tougher infrastructure standards, and greater financial exposure for utilities operating in fire-prone areas.
Edison’s Position: No Comment Yet
As of publication, Southern California Edison has not issued a formal response to the DOJ lawsuits. However, in prior cases, the utility has typically cited its commitment to wildfire prevention efforts, including grid hardening, undergrounding, and public safety power shutoffs (PSPS).
Observers anticipate that Edison will either:
- Deny negligence, citing unprecedented weather conditions; or
- Attempt to settle quietly, as it did in the Bobcat Fire litigation.
Either way, the utility may soon face renewed pressure from both regulators and investors to overhaul its risk mitigation protocols.
Conclusion: Future Outlook
With both federal and local governments aligned, and a growing evidentiary record of infrastructure failures, Southern California Edison now finds itself squarely at the center of a national reckoning over utility-caused wildfires.
As fire seasons grow longer and drier, this case may become a benchmark in defining legal accountability in the climate era.
Case Citations:
- United States v. Southern California Edison Co. (Eaton Fire), Case No. 2:25-cv-08356 (C.D. Cal.)
- United States v. Southern California Edison Co. (Fairview Fire), Case No. 2:25-cv-08357 (C.D. Cal.)
Subscribe for Full Access.
