Back to Insights
Save current page as PDF

Wildfire Regulation and Litigation Across the U.S.

October 15, 2025

This newsletter provides updates and legal observations of recent regulatory and litigation activity related to wildfires. This edition highlights President Donald Trump’s executive orders that impact wildfire prevention and response, state level wildfire mitigation plan legislation across the U.S., and litigation regarding the Los Angeles wildfires.

I. Federal Wildfire Regulatory

Executive Order — Empowering Commonsense Wildfire Prevention and Response, June 12, 2025

This executive order is a direct response to the January 2025 LA wildfires and aims to streamline federal wildfire capabilities to improve effectiveness and promote commonsense, technology-enabled local strategies for land management and wildfire response. The order directs the departments of Agriculture and the Interior to consolidate their wildland fire programs and recommends additional measures to modernize the nation’s wildland firefighting efforts. The order also emphasizes greater support for state and local firefighting efforts through enhanced technology and other tools to detect and respond to fires, improve access to federal resources and deregulate forest management.

In response, the Department of Interior issued Secretary Order 3443 on Sept. 10, 2025, which implements the provisions of the executive order.

Executive Order — Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production, March 1, 2025

This executive order focuses on increasing U.S. production of timber, lumber, paper, bioenergy and other wood products to reduce reliance on foreign producers, increase jobs in the forestry industry, and aid forest management and wildfire risk reduction projects. The order cites the restrictions on timber resources as one of the factors that contribute to wildfire disasters. To reduce wildfire risk, the order requires that within 180 days of the order, the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture departments consider and adopt categorical exclusions established by other agencies to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and reduce the processes and costs associated with administrative approvals for timber production, forest management and wildfire risk reduction treatments.

H.R. 5863 — Passed December 2024

H.R. 5863, the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2023, approved on Dec. 12, 2024, provides that for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, gross income does not include any amount an individual receives as a qualified wildfire relief payment. A qualified wildfire relief payment constitutes compensation for losses, expenses or damages incurred as a result of a wildfire disaster, provided the losses, expenses or damages are not also compensated for by insurance.

II. State Wildfire Regulatory

In 2025, numerous states adopted legislation requiring electric utility companies to submit wildfire mitigation plans to central state authorities. The companies must update and resubmit the plans for approval with certain frequency, such as every two, three or five years. The requirements for each plan vary by state, but they generally must include: a description of areas with heightened wildfire risk within the utilities’ service territory; procedures that the utility will use to inspect and operate its infrastructure to mitigate the risk of wildfires; key individuals who are responsible for implementing the wildfire mitigation plan; procedures for deenergizing power lines; procedures for vegetation management; procedures for restoring the electrical system in the event of a wildfire; community outreach efforts; and a system for monitoring and assessing compliance with the mitigation plan. Most states offer limitations on liability if an electric utility submits and complies with their wildfire mitigation plan.

The following states adopted wildfire mitigation plan legislation in 2025:

Oregon introduced new wildfire legislation in House Bill 3666, which requires utilities to submit an application to the Public Utility Commission for a wildfire safety certification. To receive the certification, the applicant must show that they have a wildfire protection plan approved under ORS 757.963. The applicant must also show that they are reasonably implementing the wildfire protection plan, identifying actions in the wildfire protection plan that have not been implemented and justifying the failure to take action, committing to wildfire safety, acting timely and reasonably to address outstanding deficiencies, and meeting other commission requirements.

Some states introduced legislation that does not require a wildfire mitigation plan but still impacts utilities in the event of a wildfire. For example, Kansas House Bill 2107, signed on April 10, 2025, requires utilities to bring a wildfire claim within two years of the date of the damage from the fire event. It also limits punitive damages and requires the state corporation commission to convene a workshop to assess wildfire risks and mitigation.

In light of the recent Los Angeles wildfires, California issued legislation and an executive order focusing on catastrophe research and response and on replenishing California’s wildfire fund. Senate Bill 254, adopted on Sept. 19, 2025, addresses funding mechanisms for wildfire mitigation projects and contains provisions to raise revenue for California’s Wildfire Fund. Senate Bill 254 also requires the Wildfire Fund administrator to submit a report to the governor on or before April 1, 2026, that evaluates and sets forth recommendations on new models or approaches that mitigate damage, accelerate recovery, and responsibly and equitably allocate the burdens from natural catastrophes. On Sept. 30, 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-34-25 to support Senate Bill 254’s directive to the Wildfire Fund administrator.

III. Wildfire Litigation

Federal Lawsuits Against Southern California Edison Company

The federal government filed two lawsuits against Southern California Edison related to the Eaton and Fairview Los Angeles fires. The U.S. brought claims to recover for suppression costs and rehabilitation costs of the National Forest System lands. The Eaton Fire claims are for negligence and negligence per se, violations of the California Health and Safety Code, violations of the California Public Resources Code, trespass by fire, strict liability pursuant to an easement and/or special use permit, indemnity pursuant to an easement and/or special use permit, and breach of easement and/or special use permit. Under the California Health and Safety code, the U.S. also states that it is entitled to recover its administrative, investigative, accounting and collection costs, as well as interest and late payment charges arising from the fire. The U.S. asks for damages in an amount to be determined at trial and asks for double or triple damages for wrongful injury to U.S. timber, tree and underwood.

County and City Lawsuits Against Southern California Edison Company

Los Angeles County and the cities of Pasadena and Sierra Madre filed lawsuits against Southern California Edison over damages resulting from the Eaton Fire. The LA County lawsuit alleges that Southern California Edison’s equipment caused the fire and resulted in the deaths of 17 people and the destruction of thousands of structures. All three lawsuits contain extensive prayers for relief and likely hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. All three lawsuits contain a section detailing Southern California Edison’s alleged history of safety failures that resulted in wildfires. Each complaint asks for punitive/exemplary damages.

Class Action Against Southern California Edison Company

A putative class action was filed against Southern California Edison related to the Eaton Fire alleging that Southern California Edison failed to maintain its grid and failed to shut down high-voltage transmission lines in Eaton Canyon during dangerous weather conditions. The claims in the class action are consistent with other lawsuits filed to date against Southern California Edison, alleging negligence, inverse condemnation, violations of the Public Utilities Code Section 2106, and violations of Health and Safety Code Section 13007.

Shareholder Lawsuit Against Southern California Edison Company

Southern California Edison was also sued for allegedly defrauding shareholders before the recent LA wildfires. The shareholders claim that Southern California Edison made false and misleading statements over a period of nearly four years before the LA wildfires by assuring investors that the utility used a power shutoff program to reduce the risk of wildfires during extreme weather events.

Class Action Against LA Department of Water and Power

Filings allege discrepancies between LA Department of Water and Power’s (LADWP’s) public statements and internal communications about whether power lines near the origin point of the Palisades fire were de-energized. The lawsuit claims the utility’s sub-transmission lines were active and may have started the fire. Prior to the allegations, the LADWP told The Washington Post that the powerline in the fire origin area was de-energized for five years. Another lawsuit against LADWP alleges that the utility tampered with records for a reservoir that was empty at the time of the fire. This second lawsuit accuses LADWP of failing to comply with its own policy and of altering records.

Xcel Energy Settlement

In September 2025, Xcel Energy agreed to pay $640 million to settle a lawsuit over liability for the 2021 Marshall Fire in Colorado. The Marshall Fire burned more than 1,000 homes and resulted in the deaths of two people. An investigation conducted by the Boulder County Sheriff’s office found two sources for the fire, one of which was an arcing Xcel Energy powerline. Losses from the fire were estimated at more than $2 billion.

IV. What We Are Reading

California Senate Bill 429

California is considering legislation that would establish a public wildfire catastrophe model. Current law requires insurers with at least $10 million in written California premiums to submit fire risk data for residential properties they insure. Senate Bill 429 would create a Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program under the California Department of Insurance and fund research to develop a “public wildfire catastrophe model.” The model would use the best available science to simulate potential property damage caused by major wildfires. The model would also be used to shape risk mitigation strategies, inform actuarial analysis and support regulatory oversight of insurance rates.

Stanford Report — “Wildfire: An Updated Look at Utility Risk and Mitigation”

Stanford’s report is part of an ongoing project to assess electric utilities’ relative wildfire risk exposure and mitigation plan development.

Rep. Robert Garcia Report — “Sounding the Alarm: Lessons from the Kenneth Fire False Alerts”

This report concerns a false Wireless Emergency Alert from January 2025 mistakenly sent to nearly 10 million residents across LA County during the Kenneth Fire. The false alert caused widespread public confusion and alarm. The alert was intended to reach only those in the immediate danger zone in Calabasas and Agoura Hills but instead reached the entire county. The report outlines the findings of a Congressional oversight investigation into the causes, impacts and systemic vulnerabilities that led to the erroneous alert. The report found that there were technical flaws in the third-party software used for the alerts, insufficient warning mechanisms for missing location data and broader issues with alert messaging clarity. The report recommends improved federal funding for local alerting infrastructure, that FEMA should provide enhanced training and certification for alert originators, standardization of third-party software, implementation of location-aware maps in alert messages, and finalization of FCC performance standards.

Subscribe