Sustaining us is made possible by Fireheart Entertainment and viewers like you.

Thank you.

Hello and thanks for joining us for sustaining us here on KLCS public media.

I'm David Nazar.

Can Los Angeles learn from its mistakes where fires are concerned?

Can L.A. not fall victim again to the fatal tragedy that happened in January 2025, when the worst wildfires on record in its history ravage the City of Angels?

The Palisades and the 18 fires, 29 lives lost, thousands of homes and structures burned to the ground or badly damaged, tens of thousands of acres scorched and billions of dollars of devastation.

Who or what or to blame?

Are these fires preventable?

To some degree.

We're going to hear from the attorney who is suing SoCal Edison, the mega Southern California power company, over what the attorney claims was neglect and mismanagement on the part of SC that led to the Eaton Fire.

First, though, joining me now to discuss the fires is Los Angeles City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez.

Councilwoman Rodriguez represents the city's seventh district, which includes great communities like Sylmar, Pacoima and other parts of the northeast San Fernando Valley.

Monica, thank you so much for being here.

Good to be with you, David.

A return guest on this program.

I should add, Councilwoman Rodriguez, let's begin with a simply put, what went wrong was this Mother Nature doing her thing?

Or to be honest, was there something possibly more unfortunate, more sinister, I should say possibly to blame for the fatal January L.A. wildfires that at least might have added to the mass devastation, the destruction, the lives lost.

Monica well, you know, anybody that was in Southern California the evening of January 7th knows the velocity.

The winds were unlike anything I've ever experienced in my life.

And, my district has been subject to a number of very large scale wildfires, many wind driven events that, of course, exacerbate the conditions.

I think the combination of how ferocious the winds were that night, of course, tragically, a fire, you know, starting, in those conditions, not having the ability to have an aerial assault, really hindered, the circumstances, certainly with both fires.

I think it again, you can only have a ground attack.

And when you have a ground attack, only you're only hitting the whatever perimeters you can access with whatever resources you have available.

So I think that's, one thing I would also say that, you know, I also had a fire in my district.

The first fire that started, the evening of January 7th at 1030 in the evening as well.

And thankfully, because of, I, you know, probably, an overabundance of exercises that we've done because our community is so well practiced.

My district, we went straight into action.

We evacuated 71 horses.

My staff went out there.

We were active on the scene.

The community knew what to do.

And so we were well rehearsed.

Sadly, because we've experienced these events many, many times over.

But again, these events are unpredictable.

We saw a number of fires starting.

I, eager to see, from, those investigating whether or not you know what the original source was.

I know you're going to have the individual, leading that lawsuit with Edison at the Hearst fire.

We have, Edison power lines.

Edison has suggested that perhaps that did.

In fact, was the source of the Hearst fire.

And I think we have to have conversations about public utilities, about, our ability to do brush clearance on a more regular basis in the areas that they cover so that we can protect as many lives and properties as possible going forward.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

And I hear you allow me.

And clearly you said something of paramount importance.

You're right.

The winds were crazy.

Normally we have like 40, 50 mile an hour.

Santa Ana winds were used to that.

You are correct.

These were like 80 miles an hour.

That is not so common.

Yet.

With that said, what is your opinion of Mayor Karen Bass firing LA Fire Chief Christine Crowley?

It was back in February, I believe.

The chief obviously appealed.

And obviously your city council did not reinstate her.

Yeah.

You know, I was incredibly disappointed and made very, clear my, disappointment with that decision and opposed it very vehemently.

Chief Crowley has been an outstanding leader for the Los Angeles City Fire Department.

I still believe that, today.

And, I was incredibly angry, at what I thought was false statements around, the rationale behind her dismissal.

Because, I had the CEO even in council chambers when we were considering her appeal, basically corroborate that, what the chief was citing was fact, the idea and the suggestion that she could have retained a thousand firefighters on duty, without apparatus.

That's just not gonna, you know, that there's no place to put those firefighters.

We would have paid them to basically sit in the stations because we had no apparatus to distribute them, to these fires.

Then subsequently, the, suggestion that she refused to participate in an after action report.

Well, the day of her appeal, the city council was actually going to be deliberating on, the allocation to fund an after action report.

So, again, the mayor has within her authority as, the mayor of Los of in her executive authority to hire and fire general managers.

I had a really big problem with what she cited as the cause and reasons, suggesting that it was for the safety of Angelinos.

Chief Crowley has been dedicated her life to protecting Angelenos.

And I just had a really big problem with, the idea that it was for the safety of Angelenos that she would make this decision.

Monica, when you voice your concerns, obviously your city council colleagues heard what you were saying.

How did they react to you?

You know, well, obviously, my colleague Tracy Park voted with me.

She was the one other colleague who, who supported, my, my position, but I will tell you what I was, overwhelmed by was the amount of both public support and members of the, fire department that were so grateful, and so showed me so much gratitude for how I spoke up, in the wake of what even one colleague suggested would be political retribution for me taking a position against the mayor.

And as I said to them, and I'll say to you now, I, you know, I don't pull punches when it comes to standing up for doing what's right.

I think that's what people want and expect from their elected officials.

And I was proud to stand up for Chief Crowley, and I would be honored to do it every day that I get an opportunity to.

Because she didn't deserve, I believe, how she was treated, in the aftermath of these of this catastrophic event.

Yeah.

I appreciate you for that.

Truly.

And I'm going to echo another sentiment that every Angelino, nearly every Angelino I've spoken with and we've done many fire stories.

I've been out in the field talking to hundreds of folks since January.

Obviously, they all say that she was the collateral damage.

She should not have been fired.

They put the blame on Mayor Brass and on, Governor Newsom.

And that's just what I have been hearing.

Next question from a city perspective, a policy perspective going forward, is there something that can be done?

Councilwoman Rodriguez, possible solutions to where city folk, county officials, all the agencies maybe are better prepared for these disasters, the wildfires, in other words, where can improvements be made?

And I know you've done Herculean efforts in your, communities that you represent to do those positive things.

But on a larger scale, what can we all do to have just better, better reaction to these fires?

I think practicing, evacuation strategies is of paramount importance.

I know that's something that we do in my district with regularity, and I think every other part of the city, particularly hillside communities, need to be exercised.

Emergency events are not a matter of if, but when they happen.

And so we all have to have a plan.

And again, we always find ourselves in these difficult circumstances.

But if you don't practice and exercise what you're going to do when those moments arise, that's when you're going to have the greatest, catastrophic event because no one is prepared.

I would say that brush clearance remains top of mind.

I had introduced motions previously because even Caltrans properties, which is, you know, California Highway, they need to maintain the right of ways because during wind driven events, it doesn't matter if it is if the fire, commences, in these wildfire zones, embers can fly a mile if the wind conditions are right and the conditions are always right because they're dry.

Here in California, we have a an unending wildfire season.

And so we have to always be prepared.

Property owners need to help create that defensible space that assures that firefighters will be able to have a fighting chance to protect lives and properties.

And so I think it really this is a Herculean effort for our communities to be exercising these good practices and making sure that we are creating a sense of, you know, caring for one another, that we are, in fact, doing all the brush clearances, creating that defensible space and creating great, emergency evacuation plans.

Because, as I said, with the circumstances, with the horses we evacuated 71, that would have likely have perished, from the Hearst fires.

But with members of our community, we went and evacuated those horses safely and got them to safety.

And that was because we had practiced all of, you know, those events.

And that was a, you know, 11:00 at night.

And we we went out and did it.

So again, we have to remember that our first responders can't do it all, that we are also part of the team.

And we need to act that way.

Yeah.

And you don't get enough credit because I reported on that fire, the house fire and you did a good job in your community.

I am going to say this.

I think fires bring out the best in the worst in people with the worst, and I don't I don't mean to politicize this, but this has to be said.

I try to take a very common sense approach.

Monica, on this program, not left, not right, just center, some center left things, some runner right, center right things.

It's just how it is.

And I've tried to tell our audience that, yes, we've got to take climate change seriously.

We get it.

No one wants a bad environment.

But look at these fires.

It's getting crazy with the far left and the progressives in this city of LA never let a good crisis go to waste.

I have preached to folks most of these fires are bad infrastructure, downed power lines, homeless, whether accidental or arson, fires started, as you mentioned earlier, not the proper brush clearing, not the proper management.

The felling of trees, the disc, the mowing, the plowing.

The state does not take responsibility for what they should be doing.

And what I keep hearing right after the fires in January, still here, I heard some people on the left say, well, the climate change.

See, it just makes me enraged because we've got to be in this together.

And when you have a politicized sort of, legalese about it, you're not going to get anywhere.

I didn't I didn't mean to jump in and editorialize, but I don't know how we're going to change that narrative in this city.

There's got to be a common sense approach to all of this.

Monica, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

the, political affiliation, we don't have them affixed to people's residences.

The reality is, is that we are all affected by the devastation that occurs and whether or not, you know, it doesn't matter what neighborhood you live in.

I understand the incredible emotion and the devastation that these events cause.

It, it elicits a lot of fear.

And, I, you know, sadly, I'm just so well rehearsed in all of this, and well practiced, as is my staff.

But I will tell you, being that rehearsed and being that practiced is what I think helped us save, those horses, helped my community go into action, and people knew exactly what to do.

And I remind everybody that, again, you know, we have we are sadly, just woefully under-resourced when it comes to our fire personnel.

A city of 4 million has roughly 3500 firefighters spread across to over 460, square miles of city.

You meet with so many people, Monica, so many residents.

You've talked to, so many.

You've talked with so many folks since January.

What are some of the residents telling you?

What are they sharing with you?

All the folks you talked to?

You know, I know a lot of folks are still just trying to figure out how they're going to rebuild.

Where do we go from here?

Obviously, our city is an incredible fiscal crisis.

And so, I'm focused on that and helping to make sure that we can continue to sustain, fundamental city services and, protecting Angelenos and giving them the services that they deserve and making sure that our city is well-prepared for the next big catastrophe.

So, and, you know, some of the large scale events that are going to be coming as well.

So we have a lot to look forward to.

But people are concerned, I think financially, and, and because of, the, the, you know, the circumstances at the federal level, there's a lot of fear out there.

So I think there's, it is not been a slow start to 2025.

So I think it's been, pretty dynamic and volatile for a lot of people.

And dynamic and volatile indeed.

In our final 30s, what is your opinion, Monica, of the lawsuit or lawsuits that have been filed against us?

So Cal Edison.

Well, I think, you know, obviously, ratepayers are going to be impacted by these, by these lawsuits.

But again, much like any other, utility or, or, public aid entity, the reality is, is that we have an obligation to prioritize safety for, properties and lives.

And, you know, as I said, first fire was, estimated to also be caused by power lines, associated with Edison and I, I just want to make sure that people are held accountable and that they're doing their job responsibly.

Thank you.

LA City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez, I appreciate you being here for this interview.

Of course.

Thank you for having me.

And now joining us to further the discussion is attorney Ari Friedman.

Ari is a law partner at Los Angeles's Wizner Bar, which earlier this year filed a lawsuit against mega power company Southern California Edison for what Ari and Wizner bomb claim is an energy company that, in their words, is substantially to blame for the Eaton Fire.

Ari, thank you so much for being here.

Of course, David, thank you for having me.

First question, Ari, you say so Cal Edison is substantially to blame for the fire, according to the lawsuit.

I read through some of it due to a pattern of what you say is neglect, mismanagement, and if I believe I'm not mistaken, a legacy of repeated failures to address known risks of the aging, dangerous infrastructure despite repeated warnings from regulators, end quote, so to speak.

Can you elaborate and share all the details with us, Ari?

it was documented both, through, just home video.

People and, you know, on their cell phones and, fixed in place cameras at a gas station that the fire began right underneath one of Edison's towers in Eaton Canyon.

So we knew very early on that the fire was there.

And almost immediately in the subsequent days, it became obvious that there were problems with their energy grid network, with faults being reported around the same time that these, this, these fire outbreaks were being document did.

So we were fairly confident at the time that we filed that we we knew Edison had something to do with the start of the fire and judging from the history of what we know about Edison in previous fires, like Thomas, like Woolsey, we know that their equipment is often not managed effectively to the point where they they put safety of the community really at the top of their list.

So when we filed, we had a strong belief that we would be able to prove that it was Edison's equipment that started this fire.

Yeah, if I'm not mistaken.

And correct me if I'm wrong, your Wizner bomb law office.

Didn't you represent the hundreds of families in the, 2018 camp fire, as you mentioned now?

Yeah, the the Woolsey Fire was 2018, right?

And now you've got the Eaton fire.

So detail more for us.

So who are you representing?

Exactly what kind of damages are you seeking?

You know, what kind of compensation?

Whatever you can share with us about the logistics of the lawsuit against CBRE.

That's right.

We represent the individuals, the businesses, the property owners who are all affected by the fire, either, burned down entirely, suffered smoke damage, business interruption, lawsuits.

And we've done this, like I said, from the Camp Fire to Woolsey, and other fires in between.

And really, what we're seeking for is to help not only replace the value, the hard money value, the economic loss that these people suffered, but also to help compensate them for their evacuation losses, for the heartaches and the stresses that go along with losing your life long home.

These types of things can be compensable in a lawsuit, and what we found in these times is that many of the homeowners, many of the people are critically underinsured.

So also as sort of a pillar in the community to help people rebuild.

These lawsuits have helped bridge the gap between, say, their insurance money and their total loss.

Because when when people have insurance, you know, they can they can maybe absorb, a loss of part of a home or damaged a part of the home.

But when we see entire communities being erased like we do in these massive wildfires, construction costs go up, labor costs go up, the cost of rebuild to goes goes up.

And people are finding themselves struggling to be able to get back what they lost.

if I'm not mistaken, you're saying that she consistently prioritized, you know, the profit margins over public safety.

You alluded that a little bit earlier.

What do you say exactly?

Obviously, it's a scathing accusation.

Obviously, when anybody says, you know, profits over people delve more into that for us.

many people don't understand that Edison, at its core, is a for profit company.

They are what's known as an investor owned utility.

They are not run by the city or the county, but they are there to generate a profit.

And there's a constant tension when when we see these wildfires between Edison needing to deliver a profit for their shareholder versus, keeping their equipment up to, up to, you know, upgraded, maintaining their network, keeping things running efficiently.

And there is a question to be had and a question that we all can ask in our communities, in our society, about whether or not that tension can actually exist while keeping our communities safe.

And that's something we need to keep in mind because Edison is there to make a profit.

So rather than say, you know, what we saw, for example, in previous fires, you take Woolsey, there was a belief that they ran.

What they do is they run their equipment to failure.

Most people think of like a light bulb.

You know, nothing wrong with running it to failure.

You plug it in, and when it when it pops, you pull it out and you replace it.

But when that piece of equipment is a high voltage transformer that when it pops, can burn down an entire community, the analysis needs to change.

And that's one tension that we just see time and time again.

Unfortunately, not being resolved in the favor of the homeowners.

What is involved?

The SoCal Edison says, hey, the aging structure is old.

We have down lines.

We've got this wrong, that wrong.

I mean, there is a process, correct me from I can't just say, hey, let's spend $10 billion and go fix this tomorrow.

I mean, I don't know if it's that easy per se.

that's a great point to sort of talk about their infrastructure.

It is a complicated network that they need to manage and maintain.

But again, it's something they are capable of doing.

The technologies, the things that they could do to to harden their their grid, to make things more robust.

They're not unknown.

They don't need to be invented.

They are things Edison can put into place.

And especially when we look back historically, for example, Edison had a lot of problems, upgrading a lot of their electrical poles, and they knew they had to do it.

They knew those poles were aging out.

They took money to replace those poles, but just lagged behind in the speed that they were able to do it.

So when we look at what it takes to really make sure electricity is delivered safely, the reality is Edison can do it.

You take the Eaton Fire, for example.

We had advance notice that there was going to be a severe wind event long before the fire broke out.

Yet for some reason, these lines, you know, this area remained energized.

And so, you know, and the rest is is known.

We we see the fault data come through.

We've see them report that to the CPUc.

So we have to balance things that, you know, the the challenges facing Edison are not insurmountable.

And they have the ability to make sure they deliver power, safely and effectively.

It seems every few weeks there's a new lawsuit being lobbied against SoCal Edison.

County of Los Angeles recently, that one was at the Pasadena School District.

I'm not exactly sure.

Don't quote me.

Your lawsuit.

Others help our audience differentiate.

Or at least for me.

What is the difference in all of these lawsuits?

How are they?

How are they separated out?

Generally speaking, they're just going to be differentiated by who the client was and what their bosses are claiming.

A homeowner claim, for example, is going to seek the value of their lost home.

The county of Los Angeles is obviously going to be seeking the damage of their property and infrastructure, but also the intended costs that come along with dealing with a post wildfire scenario.

You've got cleanup, you've got road damage, you've got runoff, an erosion prevention.

You've probably got workers, having to pull overtime duty.

Pasadena School District is most likely seeking similar damages.

Loss of their schools, loss of their equipment, but also the attendant costs that come along with that in terms of cleanup and replacement and making sure, they are providing the services that are needed in the community.

So they're different in the sense that they're seeking, compensation, seeking justice for different aspects of their claim.

But they're united in the sense that everyone is looking at Southern California Edison as being the one responsible.

When you are reframing, when your office is there, Bom does its, let's say, Intel gathering as to the cause of the fire, because obviously you have to have your own data and Intel.

How do you separate out whether it's what the left likes to say, climate change or others say is downed power lines or infrastructure or homeless or winds or there's so many different variables and, you know, you've got to put all this together in a lawsuit.

That's right.

And we always have to be cognizant of all those consideration and factors.

There's a little bit of a balancing act.

I personally don't give a lot of, credence to this idea of global warming.

We've known about global warming for decades.

We've known about changing weather patterns for decades.

So the question isn't whether or not this was caused by global warming.

But the question is, really, how has Edison responded to these changing weather patterns?

Have they made the appropriate changes to their policies or procedures, their inspections to compensate for that fact?

When we look, you know, when we look at other considerations, you mentioned homeless encampments.

We will have to consider those things.

It could be a possibility.

Personally, I hiked up to the towers after the after the wildfire.

I could not imagine anybody stumbling into this area pre wildfire.

This was not an easily accessible area.

It was a significant hike just to get to these towers.

So again, after doing that, it's easy, easier for me to look down and say the likelihood of a homeless person being up there and starting a fire did not seem very credible.

But again, the the biggest portion of a lawsuit that we spend will be on the investigation and trying to determine exactly what happened and why.

So really, the lawsuit starts when we believe we have enough information to allege that Edison was responsible and to start the process of actually getting all the facts and data to prove it.

And in our final 30s, what is the final message you have for our viewers, whether it's about the lawsuit or the fires or prevention or anything that you can or want to share with us?

You know, I want I think with these, this fire, the eating fire and the Palisades fire especially, I think the communities in our state need to be aware that fire is a real risk, and we need to have movement from the grassroots level to make sure that our legislatures, our legislature and our government entities are making sure that power is being delivered safely.

And at its core, we all need to be aware that that this is a known risk that we have to compensate for in the management of our electricity, and that we can't just allow companies to continue to generate profit and put us all at risk without making sure that this electricity is being delivered safely.

And I hope SC grants my request for an interview.

Thank you so much, Ari Friedman with Wisner Bomb for this interview.

So greatly appreciate it.

Of course.

David, thank you so much for having me.

Thank you so much.

And now for more information about our program was a few things you have to do.

You click on KLCS.org and then click Contact Us.

Send us your questions, your comments, even your story ideas.

You know I'll get back with you.

You can also contact me on X @DavidNazarNewss or YouTube or go to DavidNazarNews and contact me there.

Thank you so much for joining us for sure.

To catch our program here on PBS or catch us on the PBS app.

Thanks again