Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Two Months On, LA County Has Not Responded to Altadena Town Council’s Edison Undergrounding Demands

Southern California Edison tells the Town Council it has no new funding for homeowners facing $30,000 to $40,000 connection costs and warns it could lose three of 20 miles planned for 2026 over unsigned access agreements

Two months after the Altadena Town Council unanimously demanded that Southern California Edison’s utility undergrounding program be paused until tree protections are in place — and that AT&T and Spectrum be required to join it — the county has not responded, and an Edison representagive told the council on June 16 it has no new funding to help homeowners facing tens of thousands of dollars in costs to connect to the new lines.

Edison’s update came near the end of a heavily attended meeting at the Altadena Community Center, where council members and residents pressed the utility on costs, trees and telecom participation.

The council’s April 21 letter delivered to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors called for the undergrounding program to be paused until tree-protection measures were in place and for AT&T and Spectrum to be required to join. Morgan Whirledge, who chairs the council’s Rebuilding and Infrastructure Committee, said the county had not answered the letter or its five recommendations.

Whirledge also pressed Edison on help for owners of homes that survived the Eaton Fire. Under Edison’s plan, such residents can stay connected overhead, with the utility placing a power pole in their front yard, or pay to tie into the new underground lines — a cost Whirledge said could run as much as $30,000 to $40,000.

Asked what financial support exists for those who want to go underground rather than keep a pole, Anthony Galardo, Edison’s senior project manager for the Targeted Undergrounding program in Altadena, said, “as of now, I do not believe there’s anything in place for it.”

Thomas Wong of Southern California Edison said the utility filed a request with the California Public Utilities Commission months ago, asking the commission to exempt customers from at least part of the cost of connecting to underground service, but has heard nothing back.

“We continue to urge them to take action on that,” Wong said.

Edison is also backing an application by Los Angeles County and the state to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s hazard mitigation grant program that could offset some connection costs, he said, but that money is “at least a few more months” away. When Whirledge summarized the answer — “So no money” — Wong replied, “There’s no new news.”

Whirledge said the council had asked Edison for a copy of the request it filed with the utilities commission. Wong said the company could provide the filing’s reference number.

Galardo told the council Edison is at risk of losing about three of the 20 miles of lines it had planned to place underground in Altadena in 2026 because it has not secured right-of-entry agreements with property owners along those routes.

The company is targeting 20 miles this year as part of roughly 63 miles planned across the community and surrounding areas, about 40 of them in the high fire area.

Galardo said Edison has been leaning on council members to help reach property owners and win those agreements.

Rob Steller, a 35-year Altadena resident who lost his home in the fire, told the council Edison is still placing service connections beneath oak trees, where homeowners cannot tie in without violating the county’s oak tree ordinance. He said a neighbor faces that situation, and that he has seen no sign Edison’s planning is weighing the risk to existing trees “despite a letter of reprimand from the county.”

Steller added that he had seen no public response from the supervisor’s office and no consequences from the council’s letter in two months.

Steller, who first raised the issue in March, said neither AT&T nor Spectrum has signaled it will join the Edison program — an absence he warned would force at least one more round of disruptive street trenching and leave telecom poles and cables in residents’ yards. Because the county supervisors administer the AT&T and Spectrum franchises, he said, they should require the companies to take part.

Asked whether the county had reached out to coordinate on the council’s recommendations, Wong said Edison had been working with the county — including Altadena Recovery Director Anish Saraiya, Supervisor Barger’s office, Public Works and Regional Planning — on the letter’s concerns, among them vegetation and tree impacts, the placement of pad-mounted transformers and other equipment, and interconnection costs. He said Edison would keep addressing individual property owners’ concerns.

David Ford, Edison’s government relations manager, said the company was in “discussions” — “not negotiations,” he said — with the county over costs tied to the secondary tap for customers, and remained “optimistic that hopefully something will come to fruition.”

Galardo directed residents with questions to a recovery center known as the Arch, at 2680 Fair Oaks Ave., to the One Stop, or to sceprojects@sce.com, and pointed them to the company’s disaster-recovery website at www.sce.com/disasterrecovery for updates. He urged residents to watch for scam calls demanding payment to avoid disconnection.

Separately, Wong said Edison will hold a community meeting on its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program on June 30 at 6 p.m. at Westminster Presbyterian Church, with Spanish translation available, and asked attendees to register in advance.