Cal Cities doubles down on wildfire mitigation, community safety, and accountability

Cal Cities has created a primer to help cities understand what’s at stake

By Melissa Sparks-Kranz, legislative advocate (environmental quality)   

Last month, Cal Cities told lawmakers at a Senate informational hearing that the Legislature should focus on wildfire prevention and mitigation when debating the state’s wildfire liability standards — and not shift accountability and costs onto victims, cities, and taxpayers.

Legislators are weighing several policies that change how much money victims and cities receive for utility-caused wildfires, which could pass later this year.

In a follow-up letter, Cal Cities and other local government partners noted that eliminating or weakening the state’s strict wildfire liability framework, coined inverse condemnation, will not solve the challenges created by utility-caused wildfires.

Courts have long ruled that electric utilities provide a public good by serving electricity to a vast majority of the state and, as a result, have the power of eminent domain — to take private property. But property owners and public agencies can also seek compensation when said infrastructure damages property. This strict requirement holds electric utilities accountable and helps prevent catastrophic wildfires. 

Reducing or spreading that standard would expose cities to liability, hitting already tight budgets. A recent California Earthquake Authority report notes that eliminating inverse condemnation could reduce utilities’ financial risk and potentially lower electric bills. But ultimately, any such change would simply shift the cost to ratepayers via their insurance bills, to local governments, and the state — all trickling back down to taxpayers.

What should the Legislature advance?

Cal Cities supports many of the wildfire prevention and mitigation options included in the report, some of which are already percolating through various bills in the Legislature. Cal Cities believes the priority must remain on reducing wildfire risk before catastrophes occur.

First, the state must increase the frequency of fire hazard data every five years through a public and transparent process. More accurate and timely data would help cities and communities better understand what fuels wildfire risks and identify mitigation measures, including building code changes, home hardening, and vegetation management.

A Cal Cities-sponsored bill, AB 2517 (Calderon), would have done just that. However, the Assembly Appropriations Committee quietly killed the bill due to its costs to the state.

The Legislature must also streamline vegetation management projects in high-fire areas, formalize Zone Zero regulations, and improve the state’s understanding of how urban conflagrations spread. Cal Cities also supports greater insurance transparency and ensuring wildfire mitigation efforts translate into more affordable insurance coverage.

How did we get here?

SB 254 (Becker, 2025) directed the California Earthquake Authority to prepare a report for the Governor and Legislature on ways to reduce disaster damage, accelerate wildfire recovery, and allocate costs more responsibly. The authority manages a ratepayer-funded account that provides money for the state’s three largest private utilities to pay wildfire-related claims. 

The earthquake authority issued the report last month, which includes 28 policy options related to disaster preparedness, recovery, insurance, wildfire mitigation, and liability.

Cal Cities, along with the California State Association of Counties and Rural County Representatives of California, last year submitted a joint letter outlining their opposition to changes to the state’s wildfire liability framework in response to the earthquake authority seeking input for the report. The Legislature has held four hearings on the topic, all of which Cal Cities has weighed in on.

What will happen next?

Cal Cities is preparing for the possibility of a late session legislative play. Cities should familiarize themselves with this issue via the Cal Cities primer and stay alert for updates from Cal Cities on opportunities to weigh in as the Legislature continues this debate.