California Assembly Rejects Newsom-Backed Wildfire Liability Bill
In the final days of the legislative session, Governor Gavin Newsom's push to pass a bill (SB 492) that would have reduced utility wildfire liability by limiting insurance company lawsuits failed. The Assembly killed the compromise bill, citing concerns about…
San Diego, CA, September 2, 2026 — The California Assembly has voted against a legislative proposal aimed at reshaping utility wildfire liability, marking a significant setback for Governor Gavin Newsom’s agenda in the closing days of the legislative session. The bill, identified as SB 492, sought to curtail the ability of insurance companies to pursue lawsuits against utility companies in cases of wildfire damages, a move intended to reduce the financial burden on utilities and potentially stabilize energy costs.
The proposed compromise bill ultimately failed to garner sufficient support within the Assembly. Lawmakers cited critical concerns regarding the nature of the proposed changes, with some describing the bill as amounting to “half measures.” Additionally, the legislative process itself drew criticism, with opponents pointing to the rushed nature of its consideration.
The failure of SB 492 underscores the challenges faced by a governor in the final stages of their term, highlighting the limitations of gubernatorial power when confronting legislative opposition and concerns about the substance and speed of proposed legislation. The exact financial implications of the bill’s failure, including its potential impact on future utility rates and wildfire recovery efforts, were not fully detailed in the legislative proceedings.
Specific details regarding the extent of the liability reduction proposed by SB 492 and the precise mechanisms for limiting insurance company lawsuits were part of the compromise. However, the bill did not advance past the Assembly, leaving the existing framework for utility wildfire liability in place. The names of specific Assembly members who voted against the bill or led the criticism were not provided.
The decision by the Assembly indicates a divergence in opinion on how best to address the complex issue of wildfire liability in California, a state that has seen extensive damage and financial strain from recent wildfire seasons. The contractor’s name was not provided. The fine amount was not provided.
Story summarized from the original created by Maya C. Miller on www.kpbs.org, see more information here.
Media gallery
