The Eaton Fire Was Not an Unavoidable Natural Disaster.
It was the result of utilities putting profits and executive pay ahead of public safety. As governor, I’ll break up the utility monopolies and hold them accountable.
One year ago today, wildfires raged through Altadena and the Pacific Palisades. These fires changed lives forever—killing dozens of people, destroying thousands of homes, displacing families, erasing entire neighborhoods.
And even now, only 12 to 13 percent of Californians who lost their homes have a permit to rebuild. Between Altadena and Pacific Palisades, only two homes have been rebuilt. These Californians were let down—by their leadership, and, in the case of the Eaton fire, by their utility companies.
This anniversary must be about accountability, not abstraction.
Because the Eaton Fire—like PG&E’s Camp Fire before it—was not an unavoidable, isolated natural disaster. It was part of a systemic pattern: the result of utilities consistently putting their own profits ahead of public safety.
Californians pay double the national average for our electricity—but utility equipment is responsible for nearly half of California’s most destructive fires. We’re literally paying for failure—being charged more to cover the costs of an aging, poorly maintained grid that’s left our communities vulnerable to wildfires.
Why? Because our utility monopolies have a perverse incentive in California: They profit more by spending more. They are financially incentivized to choose the most expensive, slowest project possible. So often times, the most cost-effective solutions—like insulating wires to reduce fire risk, community microgrids, or batteries and rooftop solar—are shelved in favor of more expensive options, like undergrounding lines.
And so while risk was shifted onto the public, profits went up. Utilities posted strong earnings even as deferred maintenance mounted, and aging, outdated equipment remained in service.
From Southern California Edison’s role in the Eaton fire, to PG&E’s responsibility for the Camp Fire, the deadliest in our state’s history—these are just two of the clearest examples of what happens as a result.
When safety is deferred, disaster follows.
How do they get away with it? The three big utility monopolies—Edison, SDG&E, and PG&E — have spent $48M in lobbying and political donations in Sacramento over the last five years.
When you think about it, a utility like PG&E isn’t even really an electric company. They’re a sophisticated Sacramento lobbying and influence operation that also happens to sell electricity.
California needs a governor who will stand up to these monopolies, hold them accountable, and break them up.
That’s what I’ll do. I’m not afraid of these guys, and I don’t owe them anything. I have gone after powerful corporations before when no one else dared to, and I’ll do it again.
I’ll also make sure our regulators have stronger enforcement powers, and that there are real penalties for repeat failures—not just settlements that get passed directly on to ratepayers.
I’ll reform California’s Public Utilities Commission, appointing members who will actually put public safety over corporate profits. And I’ll ban political donations by electric utilities, to ensure that our state legislators are doing the same.
Because more competition and accountability for utilities will not only lead to lower electric bills, but also to a safer system for all of us.
It’s the very least we owe to the families who have been devastated by preventable wildfires in this state—and to one another.



Naming the problem and fixing the problem are two different things and the distance between them is exactly the financial architecture question.
Utility monopoly capture is real and your diagnosis is accurate. But regulating a monopoly better still leaves the ratepayer as consumer not owner.
The returns still flow to shareholders not to the communities whose land, water, and infrastructure made the system possible.
The Molokai clean energy model did something different. They restructured ownership first through a community cooperative, Ho’ahu Energy, before the regulation followed. Ratepayers became owners. Returns stayed on island. That’s not a tweak to the existing architecture. That’s a different architecture.
The question that determines whether working Californians gain from this fix or just pay for it more fairly is: who owns the infrastructure after it gets built? Who captures the returns when the system works?
California has cooperative law. Hawaii just proved community energy ownership is buildable at scale. The PUC can mandate cooperative structures as a condition of state recognition and funding.
Breaking up monopolies without building community ownership just creates smaller monopolies.
So as the whole country’s mourning a DINO billionaire who has his own self agenda is using this moment to attack Newsom ! We all know that Tom like every other billionaire in this country only cares about the elite. We have seen him on stage in debates. He is not worthy of that position.