PG&E’s San Bruno judge issues new wildfire-related orders

Feb. 14--A federal judge on Thursday issued a fresh set of demands about PG&E's efforts to clear away trees and other vegetation that can trigger disastrous wildfires if they come in contact with the embattled utility's power lines or equipment.

San Francisco-based PG&E was ordered to respond to an array of questions arising from testimony given by a former PG&E executive in connection with the company's quest to reduce the chances of wildfire catastrophes in Northern and Central California, according to the order issued by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup.

The judge is supervising the aftermath of PG&E's criminal conviction in 2016 for felonies the company committed before and after a deadly explosion in 2010 that killed eight people and destroyed a San Bruno neighborhood.

Among the several demands issued by the federal court: Judge Alsup wants to know if PG&E is in compliance with a state law regarding clearing trees and other vegetation from near the company's electricity lines.

"Public Resources Code 4293 requires a 4-foot minimum clearance be maintained for power lines between 2,400 and 72,000 volts, and a 10-foot clearance for conductors 115,000 volts and above," according to a post on PG&E's website.

The judge indicated he wants a clear answer from PG&E about its compliance with the clearance rules.

"Is PG&E in full compliance with Section 4293 of the California Public Resources Code?" Alsup asked. The judge also ordered, "If the answer is anything other than an unqualified yes, state all reasons for noncompliance."

The judge gave PG&E until noon Feb. 22 to respond.

"PG&E shares the court's commitment to safety and agrees that we all have to work together with urgency to address the risk of wildfire throughout Northern and Central California," PG&E spokesman James Noonan said in comments emailed to this news organization. "We will respond to the court's order within the time frame requested."

The new orders represent only the most recent legal pressures on PG&E, which toppled into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Jan. 29 to ward off a mountain of debts and wildfire-related liabilities that loom over the utility's shattered finances.

In the years after the San Bruno explosion, public and official trust in PG&E has steadily eroded. Investigators determined the San Bruno disaster resulted from a fatal combination of PG&E's flawed record-keeping and shoddy maintenance on its gas pipeline system, as well as lazy and ineffective oversight by the state Public Utilities Commission.

Matters deteriorated further for PG&E after a series of lethal infernos that scorched the North Bay Wine Country and nearby regions in October 2017 and a deadly blaze that roared through Butte County in November 2018 and essentially destroyed the town of Paradise. PG&E's equipment was the cause of 17 of the 2017 firestorms. The utility revealed that it suffered equipment failures in the origin vicinity of the Butte County wildfire in 2018.

Even worse -- after several years during which PG&E claimed it had learned the lessons of the San Bruno disaster -- state regulators in recent months accused PG&E of falsifying safety records related to its gas pipeline system over a five-year period from 2012 to 2017.

In actions linked to PG&E's probation after the San Bruno convictions, Alsup proposed that he may oblige PG&E to remove all trees that could fall onto the company's electrical lines and to require that the utility shut off power when fires become a threat. The judge said he wants to ensure that PG&E's equipment doesn't cause any wildfires in 2019.

In court papers, PG&E claimed that a wide-ranging wildfire mitigation plan would cost $75 billion to $150 billion to undertake.

Alsup, however, has held off issuing permanent new orders in the matter.

The most recent requests from the judge emerged after a Feb. 6 filing with the court by attorneys Frank Pitre and Alison Cordova, who represent numerous Northern California wildfire victims who have lodged legal claims against PG&E.

The attorneys cited testimony from Janaize Markland, who at the time of the testimony, made in connection with a PG&E general rate case, was director of PG&E's enterprise and operational risk and insurance department.

The PG&E executive's testimony showed that "PG&E accepts a high risk of wildfires in its electrical operations," the attorneys stated in the Feb. 6 filing.

"With limited resources, PG&E cannot do everything and must decide at what point it is okay not to mitigate the risk further," Markland stated in her testimony that was included in the Feb. 6 filing. "Trade-off decisions must be made."

The judge also raised questions about what would appear to be a decade-long effort by PG&E to properly clear the trees and shrubs in numerous critical areas.

"With respect to the enhanced vegetation management work proposed in PG&E's wildfire mitigation plan, it appears that if the proposed rate of vegetation clearance were followed, it would take more than 10 years for PG&E to complete its work on the lines located within the High Fire Threat Districts alone. Is this correct?" Judge Alsup asked as part of his order.

___

(c)2019 the San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.)

Visit the San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.) at www.mercurynews.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.