Wednesday, August 19, 2026

New County Authority Can Press Edison to Reduce Undergrounding Charges, But Not Compel It

County undergrounding aid, if approved, wouldn’t reach Altadena until late 2027 — and wouldn’t cover work already done

Los Angeles County’s plan to help Altadena homeowners pay to underground their utility connections has not been funded, would not pay out until late 2027 and would not reimburse work already completed, a county official told the Altadena Town Council on Tuesday.

Ciara Barnett, an assistant deputy director with county Public Works who said she is serving in a new role with the county’s Rebuild Authority, told the council that Public Works and the Rebuild Authority filed an application in March 2026 for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program money that would offset private-property undergrounding costs for fire survivors.

The county is working with Cal OES to secure the funding from FEMA, she said. The application has been received and deemed eligible, but a decision is not expected until the end of 2027.

“The funding is not secured,” Barnett said.

If awarded, the grant would offset 75% of the cost, based on a county estimate of about $24,500 per property for 100 linear feet on a typical lot, she said, adding that the estimate also factors in standing homes. The money would be paid as a rebate but would not be retroactive.

Barnett acknowledged the timing. The schedule, she said, “is going to be too late for some homes that are in construction now and completing construction,” because a rebate program would not cover them.

Council Member Morgan Whirledge, who chairs the council’s Rebuilding and Infrastructure Committee, pressed her on how many households that would exclude.

“So I think by the county’s own numbers, over half have submitted for permits currently,” Whirledge said. “So assuming that that funding doesn’t come until the end of 2027, then it just seems like that’s far too little too late for most, right?”

“It’s an important decision point,” Barnett replied.

Council Member Connor Chipola asked Barnett to state the terms plainly.

“It’ll be a rebate program, not retroactive,” Barnett answered.

Asked by Council Member Justin Moramos to explain why the money could not be applied retroactively, Barnett said only that it was a function of how the grant program is structured.

Insurance would also determine eligibility. Barnett said qualifying homes would include insured properties already eligible for insurance claims, and that underinsured homeowners may be eligible if they can produce documentation supporting that position. But if insurance covers the connection, she said, the property would not be eligible for the program.

“I think especially for standing homes, that battle is just very, very difficult for residents,” Whirledge said.

The county’s $24,500 estimate is below what residents say they are being quoted. Whirledge said homeowners have received estimates of between $30,000 and $40,000, and that Southern California Edison asked the California Public Utilities Commission for the ability to include the cost in its capital expenditures only up to what he believed was about $6,000.

“It’s just hard to understand how a project can be taken to a significant level of completion, but then left to the residents to bear the burden of the final cost of completion,” Whirledge said.

No alternative funding source was identified during the presentation.

Asked by Whirledge whether other money was being pursued, or whether the cost could be folded into a tax increment financing district, Barnett said Supervisor Kathryn Barger’s office wrote to Edison in June and that Edison’s response letter referenced CPUC funding.

Vice Chair Milissa Marona said federal money already promised to the county has yet to arrive.

“It would be nice if we could get that FEMA money that was already promised to the county, looking at you, Washington, D.C., for that money,” Marona said. “We still are waiting. Our people still are hurting and we need that money and we need it quickly.”

She invited President Trump to come to Altadena and see what is there and what residents are doing and enduring.

Marona, who said she has worked closely with the CPUC, also said Edison maintains its own standards for transformers while Malibu is receiving underground vaults, and asked whether the council could write to the commission on its own. Barnett said she would welcome working together on it and with the council’s rebuilding and infrastructure committee.

Barnett said the Rebuild Authority was newly established within Public Works by the Board of Supervisors to coordinate recovery after the Eaton and Palisades fires and is not another permitting agency. Its role, she said, is to bring together county departments, utilities, state and federal partners and residents rebuilding private property, and to push Edison for better information, proactive communication, advance notice and compliance with county requirements, including protections for trees in the public right of way.

Utilities are regulated by the state through the CPUC, she said, while the county’s role is permitting work within the public road right of way and ensuring it meets county requirements, alongside what she described as a responsibility to advocate for the community.

She said Public Works is modifying its permit conditions to require 30 days’ advance notice so residents can review planned work before construction begins. Edison is rebuilding 63 miles of line within Altadena, she said, and AT&T now has an agreement covering 40 miles in the very high fire hazard severity zone.

Asked by Whirledge whether utilities would trench the same streets more than once, Barnett said the work does not require full road closures and that microtrenching moves quickly. Coordination is complicated by the pace of private rebuilding, she said, noting that more than 50% of some streets now have active permits and pointing residents to a new parcel map on the county’s recovery dashboard.

Chipola asked whether the county has authority to require joint trenching. Barnett said a single shared trench is not always practical because electric and telecommunications infrastructure use different construction methods and depths, and that the county’s role is sequencing the work so neighbors are not disturbed more than once.

Council Member Dorothy Wong asked how water lines and street reconditioning fit in. Barnett said underground work must be completed before roads are rebuilt, and that the county is developing an infrastructure recovery plan identifying public projects and a framework for prioritizing them.

Whirledge also asked whether the Rebuild Authority includes a seat for a community member from the affected area. Barnett did not identify one, saying the authority’s purpose is to convene the parties and subject matter experts and that she looked forward to working with council members and committees.

Council Chair Nic Arnzen said he has been looking for precedents and pointed to Paradise, California. After PG&E admitted fault there, Arnzen said, Paradise Mayor Steve Crowder told him the utility helped with road repair and covered the cost of running service from the street across private property to the home. A letter to the CPUC succeeded in compelling undergrounding there to include telecommunications providers, Arnzen said, producing what he called a “one dig” in which the full town went underground.

“So a precedent is set that a disaster stricken area can push for that,” Arnzen said. He asked Barnett whether the county has compelled the CPUC at all or only held discussions, and said the Altadena council could take a lead on the effort. He said he has raised the approach with the council but has not taken it to the county.

“We can coordinate, we can advocate, but we can’t control their overall undergrounding investment decisions or their program boundaries,” Barnett answered, saying the undergrounding program is ultimately part of the utility system and regulated at the state level.