Attorneys push back on Edison's Eaton fire claims

A letter from Southern California Edison downplaying the potential role of utility equipment in starting the Eaton fire has attorneys who represent Altadena residents doubling down on claims that the blaze was ignited by malfunctioning Edison equipment.

"We have had our experts in the area of origin, and we believe there is strong evidence as to cause and origin from SCE equipment, as well as video that appears to show the major flashes that started the fire - flashes consistent with SCE's equipment as the cause," Matthew S. McNicholas of McNicholas & McNicholas LLP in Los Angeles said in an email on Thursday.

McNicholas represents plaintiffs who suffered property loss and damage in the Eaton fire, along with his partner and brother, Patrick McNicholas.

"They're trying to thread a needle so that they can actually recognize the evidence against them without admitting fault," Patrick McNicholas said in a phone call on Thursday. "But there is evidence, physical evidence, present at the place where the fire started, which indicates that that is where the fire started, and once we get their actual data, we'll be able to examine it ourselves."

Edison released two letters to the Public Utilities Commission on Thursday, one for the Eaton fire and one for the Hurst fire in Sylmar. While the company conceded that its equipment "may be associated with the ignition of the Hurst fire" in one letter, it seemed to downplay potential responsibility for the Eaton fire in the other.

"Preliminary analysis of electrical data for the four energized transmission lines that run through Eaton Canyon for 12 hours prior to the reported start time of the fire shows that there were no faults on those lines until more than one hour after the reported start time of the fire," the letter read.

Still, the company said it observed a flash of light consistent with equipment malfunction upon re-energizing the lines on Jan. 19 - a development that Alexander Robertson IV of Robertson and Associates LLP said he was "furious" to learn about on Thursday.

"Edison concealed the fact that they re-energized those transmission circuits on Jan. 19," Robertson said in a phone call on Thursday. "Coincidentally, I was standing at the base of those towers with our experts doing an investigation of the towers, and Edison had told us that those lines had all been de-energized.

"They didn't tell us that when they re-energized, that there was more arcing that apparently they observed at the top of those towers, and that violated the preservation of evidence hold that we had placed on that equipment," he continued. He noted that his firm would continue to file complaints against Edison on behalf of Altadena residents affected by the Eaton fire.

Other attorneys speculated that Edison's letter was written to obfuscate the real possibility that their equipment was responsible for the fire.

"I think their response is very carefully crafted to give them an opportunity to backtrack on it later," said Paul L. Starita of Singleton Schreiber in San Diego, who represents plaintiffs in multiple lawsuits against Edison related to the Eaton fire.

Starita pointed to widely disseminated photos and videos that appear to show flames erupting around an Edison tower the night the fire started.

"I think it's important for folks to understand that SCE has access to data and information that we're not getting access to right now, but we absolutely believe the evidence will support - and certainly the photographic evidence and video support - that their equipment did start the Eaton fire," Starita said in a phone call on Friday.

Ari S. Friedman of Wisner Baum LLP in Los Angeles agreed.

"There is an overwhelming amount of photographic and video evidence that the Eaton Fire began beneath and because of Edison's tower," Friedman said in an email on Friday. "Much of the forensic data and items have been sequestered by investigators and have not been made available to the lawyers for the Eaton fire victims, or the public generally.  We are confident that when we are given access to all the information and equipment, we will be able to show, just like we have done in previous fires like the Thomas and Woolsey fires, that Edison was responsible for the Eaton fire and all the damage it caused."

Not every attorney involved in suing Edison was as quick to cast blame, however.

"I'm entering into this with an open mind," said R. Rex Parris of the Parris Law Firm in Lancaster, who represents a group of fire victims.

"There is some evidence that it was caused by the Edison power lines. There's also some evidence that maybe it wasn't. We don't know yet," Parris said in a phone call on Thursday. "I'm not in a hurry to hold somebody accountable who's not accountable.

"There is sufficient reason to believe that they are at fault - you've got movies of it," he continued. "But what I don't want to see happen - and I'm sure it will - is lawyers will be coming out, pointing their finger and bringing all kinds of accusations, and I don't think that serves any of us very well. What is accurate here? What is the cause? There's always a cause. Let's find out what it is, and if somebody needs to be held accountable for it, then let's hold them accountable," he continued.