Relevant Document: Order
On Wednesday evening, Jan. 9, Judge William Alsup issued an order to show cause why PG&E’s conditions of probation should not be modified as proposed in the order. Judge Alsup is overseeing PG&E’s probation over the San Bruno gas explosion, which killed eight people in 2010 and for which PG&E was
found guilty of six felonies in 2016 and sentenced to probation in 2017. Generally, the court proposes that PG&E re-inspect all of its electrical grid between now and the 2019 wildfire season and that during the 2019 wildfire season, PG&E supply electricity only through those parts of its electrical grid that it has determined to be safe under the wind conditions then prevailing.
Separately on Wednesday evening, Judge Alsup
endorsed a finding from probation officer Jennifer Hutchings and concluded that there is “probable cause to believe that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. violated the conditions of their Probation.” The probable cause finding orders the issuance of a summons directing PG&E to appear before the court on Jan. 30 at 12 p.m. ET (also the hearing on Judge Alsup’s order to show cause). The finding from probation officer Hutchings details the manner in which PG&E is said to have violated its probation: alleged reporting failures related to October 2017 fires in Butte County.
All parties’ responses to the order to show cause are due by 3 p.m. ET on Jan. 23.
In the order to show cause, the court also requests CAL FIRE’s input concerning its “investigation into the specifics of wildfires caused by PG&E and on what operating restrictions going forward might be adopted by the Court as a condition of probation to maximize the safety of California.” The court has asked CAL FIRE to file a public statement by Jan. 25. The court also invites comment by Jan. 25 from the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, noting that the court will consider conforming its proposed conditions to any “better plan for [e]nsuring the safety of California before the 2019 Wildfire Season” that the CPUC or the California legislature may develop.
In the order, the court proposes to add new probation conditions “intended to reduce to zero the number of wildfires caused by PG&E in the 2019 Wildfire Season.”
The court acknowledges the likely need for service interruptions, including during high-wind events, but emphasizes that the “inconvenience, irritating as it will be, will pale by comparison to the death and destruction that otherwise might result from PG&E-inflicted wildfires.”
First, given PG&E’s history of “falsification of inspection reports,” PG&E would be required, between now and the 2019 wildfire season (June 21 through the first region-wide rainstorm in November or December) to do the following:
- “[R]e-inspect all of its electrical grid and remove or trim all trees that could fall onto its power lines, poles or equipment in high-wind conditions, branches that might bend in high wind and hit power lines, poles or equipment, and branches that could break off in high wind and fall onto power lines, poles or equipment”;
- “[I]dentify and fix all conductors that might swing together and arc due to slack and/or other circumstances under high-wind conditions”;
- “[I]dentify and fix damaged or weakened poles, transformers, fuses and other connectors”; and
- “[I]dentify and fix any other condition anywhere in its grid similar to any condition that contributed to any previous wildfires.”
The order explains that the trees and branches to be removed include “any tree or branch posing the dangers described above” and are not limited to those “within the distances prescribed by the California Public Resources Code.”
Second, for each of its electrical grid segments, PG&E must document the required inspections and work done and rate the safety of each segment under little-wind to high-wind conditions. In addition, PG&E must designate one or more “qualified engineers” to make the required safety determinations to certify the ratings. Citing PG&E’s false-reporting history, the order prohibits PG&E from relying on earlier inspection reports in lieu of performing new inspections. In ordering PG&E to comply with the order, applicable law and the monitor’s guidance, and to be “complete and truthful,” the court notes that “[i]f a power line happens to comply with all of the requirements of state law but nevertheless poses a safety issue under the circumstances, then the line may not be rated as safe until the safety issue is resolved.”
Third, during the 2019 wildfire season and after, the order permits PG&E to supply electricity only through the portions of its electrical grid that it has determined to be safe under then-prevailing wind conditions. The order conversely requires PG&E to de-energize any portions of its electrical grid that have not yet been rated as safe under then-prevailing wind conditions until the conditions have subsided. The order explains that PG&E is not permitted to consider the need for reliable service, inconvenience to customers from service interruption or the effect on PG&E’s revenues and profits in determining safety. Although reliability and profits are important, “safety must come first,” the court stresses.
The order indicates that the monitor would oversee compliance with the order and provide the court with a monthly report that “plainly and prominently identifies any weaknesses in PG&E’s compliance,” adding that PG&E must notify the monitor and probation of any violations. In addition, the order requires PG&E to advise emergency personnel and the public at-large if its services are to consider plans for backup emergency generators as a “hedge” against power interruptions.