SCE customers billed for days without power, while water rates surge despite firefighting shortages
Scrolling through local social media, one sees postings objecting to Southern California Edison billing indignant Malibu customers for days when they were without power during recent fires.
“Did anyone else get their most expensive bill from SCE for the latest billing period, which includes the many days thatwe were on a generator during the fires and wind events?” Malibuite Carla McClosky queried. “We also received a notice of rate hikes for water — when will something be done to get more water in Malibu?”
Posts by local residents responding to McClosky’s frustrated questions vociferously objected to SCE billing them for days without power in December and January due to fires and mudslides — for many days!
The California Public Utilities Commission has determined that more than $1.6 billion of the $2.7 billion paid to Thomas Fire victims will now be covered by SCE customers. It is the first time in 30 years that the commission has approved such a pass-through assessment.
Investigators have determined that the fire was sparked by SCE equipment. The commission voted 4-0 in favor of allowing the rate increase despite strenuous public opposition. According to the commission, it “received dozens of complaints opposing the SCE’s settlement application and strongly objecting to the Commission authorizing any ratepayer rate increases to reimburse SCE for costs caused by the Thomas Fire and Montecito debris flows.”
Edison has promised to spread the payments over 30 years, which is projected to cost approximately $1 on monthly bills for most customers. The utility also informed that income-qualified customers participating in California Alternate Rates for Energy and Family Electric Rate Assistance Programs will not be affected by the rate increase.
The Wild Tree Foundation, a nonprofit ratepayer advocacy group, objected to the ruling, telling Newsweek, “The commission will force victims of the Thomas Fire and Montecito Debris Flow to pay for their own damages by raising electricity rates imposed on those very victims themselves — Southern California Edison’s utility customers.”
Wild Tree also stated, “The ultimate responsibility for California’s utility-caused fires is the Legislature and the governor that have acted to decrease utility responsibilities. The commission has failed for decades to ensure that utilities protect public safety and to hold utilities accountable when their negligence causes catastrophes.”
Seven Democratic state legislators wrote the commission requesting that its President Alice Reynolds revisit the decision and impose more of the utility’s costs for reimbursing fire victims on SCE shareholders instead of on fire victims. “By allowing SCE to raise rates in order for customers to cover these damages, we are failing to hold them accountable.” The legislators’ letter stated. Instead, the lawmakers asserted, the Commission is “passing its liability onto the residents of the region that bear no responsibility for the disaster. Those in regions prone to wildfires have already suffered the consequences of utility failure by being forced to endure power outages, property destruction and displacement – it is reprehensible to require those same consumers to assume the financial responsibility for corporate mismanagement and infrastructure deficiencies.”
To be fair, it is important to not that the terms of the Commission’s settlement of its rates dispute with SCE also require the utility to allocate $50 million of shareholder funds toward future mitigation initiatives, “designed to reduce the risk of wildfire and other safety incidents from SCE’s operation of its electrical system.” Nevertheless, Malibuites are aggrievedby the rate hikes.
But wait there’s more — possible rate hikes related to the Woolsey Fire loom
A second rate hike is under review by the commission as SCE has also asked for approval to pass on $5.4 billion in its costs attributable to the 2018 Woolsey Fire, which, according to one investigation by CalFire and the Ventura County Fire Department, was caused by the utility’s equipment. If that request is approved by the commission, customers will be saddled with a more than 2% rate increase.
But wait! There’s even more! The water company increased customer rates
The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works requested approval from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors effective for service provided on Feb. 1, 2025, asking the department to adjust water rates over a five-year period to pass-through cost increases due to inflation and/or the cost of purchasing water from the wholesale water agencies serving the Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts.
Malibu is served by Waterworks District Service Area No. 29. A less-than-pleased Amy Moorman and her spouse Mark Lange strongly protest having to bear such an increase, as do several others in Malibu who voiced protests online and strongly opined that the increase is quite ill-timed given that many who fought the Palisades Fire lamented the fact that there was not enough water to fight the Palisades Fire, a dilemma first responders almost always grapple with in wildfires in Malibu.
Notices of Public Hearings were sent to water customers on Oct. 29 and in December, Lange noted. Those communications cited three primary reasons for proposed rate adjustments. First, the district sought, “to ensure that the Waterworks Districts in Los Angeles receive sufficient revenue to keep pace with inflation.” Second, the district strived to ensure that increases in the rates for wholesale water cost service can be recovered through rates. Finally, the rate increase was requested “to ensure the Waterworks Districts continue to manage their financing responsibly and in a manner that secures ongoing safe, reliable drinking water.”
The board approved the inflationary pass through, which, according to notices of price increases sent to customers, is calculated annually based on the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for Los Angeles County, which is published every July. Wholesale pass through rates are determined based on the adopted rate increases by any wholesale provider. These adjustments are combined to determine the total rate increase, which is then applied to a baseline rate to calculate the increased water service fees imposed on customers.
Lange noted that for Malibu customers, the 2024 average bi-monthly bill was $521.92, and, when the new rate increase is imposed, the 2025 average bi-monthly bill for average water use will be $561.06, resulting in an effective increase of 7.5%. He pointed out that the board approved an inflationary pass through rate with an average rate increase of 7.5% which means that in five years, the proposed average rate will amount to $749.28.
That translates into a 44% increase in the average rate over five years.
Customers have no recourse with regard to what happens to their water bill for the next five years, Lange noted. He also computed the average maximum allowable increase of 15% per year, again beginning with the average rate in 2024 of $521.92 which will surge to $1,049.77 over five years, representing a startling 101% increase in the maximum allowable customer rates.
Moorman objected to how the Board of Supervisors and the commission handled letting affected customers an opportunity to object to the proposed rate increase.
“One thing that is really bothering me is that the rate increase is set up for a guaranteed win,” she stated. “The Commission would not accept email letters or faxes — only mail-in protests or in-person protests at the meeting. In this day and age, not accepting emails and not having to show how many emails they received is questionable at best.”
Lastly, she characterized the proposed rate increase being slated to go into effect Feb. 1 as involving, “a fast turnaround.”She concluded, “it’s almost like they knew there wasn’t a chance for defeating” the proposed rate increase.
Returning to McClosky’s question about when Malibu will get adequate water
As Malibuites object to water rate increases, they note that deficiencies in available water to fight wildfires in Malibu isnot new. The problem is perennial, as many first responders bemoaned when fighting the Palisades Fire.
Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered an investigation of the problem on Jan. 10.
“The ongoing reports of the loss of water pressure to some local fire hydrants during the fires and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir are deeply troubling to me and the community,” Newson wrote in a letter to Janisse Quiñones, CEO of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and L.A. County Public Works Director Mark Pestrella. “While water supplies from local fire hydrants are not designed to extinguish fires over large areas, losing supplies from fire hydrants likely impaired the effort to protect some homes and evacuation corridors.”
Newsom posted the letter on X (formerly Twitter), stating, “We need answers to ensure this does not happen again and we have every resource available to fight these catastrophic fires.”
In the next couple of weeks, this reporter will be writing articles concerning residents’ ability to utilize more water tanks, install private fire hydrants with strong nozzles and hoses, use swimming pools to supply water sources to fight future fires, and install water sprinkling systems on roofs to defend against wildfires.