By admin 
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of two homeowner insurance-related bills has renewed tensions with the wildfire survivor advocacy groups who fought his recent bid for sweeping reforms to how much liability electric utility companies face after their equipment starts destructive infernos.
Read more Small jet overruns Auburn Municipal Airport runway; passengers escape injury
Senate Bills 877 and 878 would have required companies to expand what they disclose to homeowners about damage estimates and forced them to pay interest if they don’t make payouts for properties within a month from being considered a total loss.
The measures were authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Alhambra, who represents a district affected by the Eaton Fire, one of two major blazes that tore through Los Angeles County last year. Pérez crafted the two bills in response to “well-documented” issues survivors of both the Eaton and Palisades fires faced when seeking redress from the insurance companies, she told The Sacramento Bee.
Pérez had not expected the vetoes, she said, given the broad interest in helping wildfire victims and the support her bills drew in the Legislature. No lawmaker voted against the final versions of the measures before they went to Newsom.
“They’re very straightforward,” she said of the bills. “So it was a shock.”
In a that accompanied the vetoes Sunday, the governor said the measures would “codify portions of unrelated, existing regulations that are unnecessary at this time.”
That explanation did not sit right with groups that supported the bills and also strongly opposed the Newsom-led effort to change how the state handles the aftermath of utility-caused wildfires.
“Their veto appears to be a retaliation against wildfire victims who stood up against Governor Newsom taking their rights during the last month of session,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, the advocacy group, in a statement. “It’s unbecoming of a public official.”
Joy Chen is the executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, which was formed after the Los Angeles area wildfires. Chen said she hoped the governor “would not stoop so low to put every family in California at risk just because he was mad that his bailout died.”
When asked about the allegation, Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez said the “veto message speaks for itself,” and pointed to other recent bills the governor has signed to provide mortgage, insurance and other protections to people deeply affected by wildfires.
Earlier this month, Newsom traveled to Altadena where he stood next to Pérez as he signed a package of fire recovery legislation, largely dealing with smoke-damage assessments and mortgage relief for families who lose a home.
“Thank you to the survivors and advocates who demanded action,” Newsom said at the time. “California will always have your back.”
Read more Cirian Villavicencio epitomizes a life-long commitment to service and students
The Pérez bills Newsom vetoed did not have any registered opposition, including from trade groups that represent major insurance companies in the state.
Rex Frazier, the president of one of those groups, the Personal Insurance Federation of California, said in an email the organization did not have any discussions with the Governor’s Office about the bills.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara supported Senate Bill 878, joining alongside Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network as the main supporters. The commissioner’s support made Newsom’s veto message, in which he also cited ongoing work from Lara’s department before saying the bills were unnecessary, all the more puzzling, Pérez said.
Michael Soller, a Lara spokesperson, declined to comment on the vetoed bills.
Vetoes came weeks after bitter legislative fight
Newsom’s August bid to rewrite how California law assigns wildfire liability to electrical utility companies drew opposition from a broad range of interest groups and lawmakers.
Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network were significant opponents.
The cornerstone of his proposal — eliminating insurance companies’ ability to sue utilities to recoup the money they pay out in claims for burned houses and properties — ran into its staunchest opposition in the state Senate.
Senators involved in those negotiations, including Pérez, resisted ending the process which is called subrogation and dramatically increases a utility’s liability when it’s found at fault for wildfires that burn into communities.
The final deal among legislative leaders did not include the immediate, or future, end of subrogation. Instead, it had measures to penalize utility executives, as well as foster more wildfire mitigation work and attempt to more quickly get money to wildfire survivors who face financially devastating losses. But that compromise ultimately failed after Newsom and utility company representatives criticized it and the Assembly declined to advance the bill.
Pérez has no way of knowing if Newsom vetoed the bills because of the position she took during the debate over electrical companies’ liabilities after wildfires, she said. In her staff’s discussions with the governor’s team during the legislative session, no major concerns about her insurance reform bills emerged, she said. But, Pérez also noted that Newsom does not telegraph whether he will veto or sign a bill during lawmakers’ deliberations, so vetoes can always come as a surprise.
“I want to believe that, as good policymakers, that such a decision would not be driven by those kinds of politics,” she said, “because these bills would have had a direct impact on survivors who are still dealing with this process with their insurance companies. So, not signing them has a direct negative impact on folks in the Palisades and in Altadena.”
Read more California voters should know what Proposition 41 is about. Here is the truth | Opinion
This story was originally published September 29, 2026 at 9:23 AM.