SDG&E's $40M plan wants to expand vegetation clearance to 25 feet but ratepayer advocate is skeptical

San Diego Union-Tribune (CA)

If providing 10 to 12 feet of clearance between vegetation and power lines is a good idea when it comes to avoiding the ignition of wildfires, then expanding the clearance to 25 feet would be even better, right?

Not necessarily, says the independent public advocacy arm of the California Public Utilities Commission. And that's at the heart of a disagreement it has with San Diego Gas & Electric.

The utility has started what it calls an "enhanced vegetation management program" as part of California's overall efforts to reduce catastrophic wildfires.

Under state regulations, a typical transmission line should have 12 feet of clearance. SDG&E, in its state-required Wildfire Mitigation Plan, has called for spending ratepayer dollars to expand the distance to 25 feet for some trees that have canopies located above adjacent power lines.

But the Public Advocates Office — called Cal Advocates for short — says SDG&E has not produced enough details to justify the vegetation management program.

"It's a matter of the utilities doing their homework or, in this case, not doing their homework, said Nathaniel Skinner, program manager for the safety branch of Cal Advocates. "If an expanded clearance increases safety, let's see the data."

Two local groups — the Protect Our Communities Foundation and the Mussy Grade Road Alliance — have also filed complaints.

SDG&E officials say the four-year, $40 million program is a good use of ratepayer dollars.

The enhanced trimming project is "driven by an important safety motivation — avoiding catastrophic wildfires," said SDG&E spokesman Robert Iezza.

Cal Advocates says it's wrong to assume that wider clearance distances will reduce wildfire risk, saying they may have side effects that could actually increase risk, especially in non-forested areas.

Removing native shrubs could lead to the growth of dry grasses which could lead to a more flammable environment and removing plants may encourage the growth of invasive species.

"We're also concerned about costs and increase in bills," Skinner said. "San Diegans are paying some of the highest bills in the in state, if not the country, and we want to make sure if San Diegans are paying money, that it's for the right thing."

Cal Advocates also accused SDG&E of dragging its feet while addressing questions from the public utility commission's newly created Wildfire Safety Division.

In comments in August, Cal Advocates called SDG&E's research plan for the project "paltry and uninformative" and said the utility responded to requests for more information from the safety division with "vague and incomplete" answers. It called on the safety division to pursue penalties against the utility because it said SDG&E "blatantly disregarded" the orders.

SDG&E responded one week later, telling the safety division such criticisms "lack merit" and defended "the beneficial impact of enhanced clearances."

The utility followed up in September with a quarterly report on its 2020 Wildfire Mitigation Plan that offered more details.

SDG&E pointed to a vegetation study it conducted that said going from 12 feet of clearance to more than 20 feet represents a 58 percent reduction in contact rate. With SDG&E's program targeting 80,000 trees within the High Fire Threat District, the utility projects 10 fewer vegetation contacts and ignition risks per year.

"While this risk reduction is less than what SDG&E had originally estimated, based on SDG&E's current average cost per trim, this program remains risk spend efficient," the report said.

The report also said the program is not looking to establish 25-foot clearances for all vegetation — only for specific trees in High Fire Threat Districts.

"SDG&E agrees that native plants and vegetation can actually help slow the spread of fires and has no intention of clear-cutting native vegetation below its power lines," the report said. "Its only objective is to trim back or remove trees with canopies located above the power lines that have the potential (to) shed branches that could contact the power lines and result in potential ignition."

Skinner of Cal Advocates said SDG&E's quarterly report was an improvement but "it does not fully resolve the concerns that we have voiced or meet the Commission's requirements."

Nevertheless, a little more than two weeks ago the Wildfire Safety Division granted SDG&E a safety certificate for 2020. However, SDG&E still has to provide more details in what is called a "Remedial Compliance Plan." SDG&E recently submitted the plan and the safety division is reviewing it.

Obtaining a safety certificate is important because it allows California utilities to access a $21 billion wildfire fund in case their equipment ignites a fire that leads to significant damages.

The establishment of the wildfire fund is part of Assembly Bill 1054, which passed through the Legislature in 2019 as an "urgency statute" backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Southern California Edison also received its annual safety certificate in September. The state's largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, is awaiting a decision on its certificate by the end of October.

Skinner said 2021's wildfire mitigation plans and safety certificates will be watched closely.

"It's clear that the Wildfire Safety Division has greater expectations for next year's filings," Skinner said. "And so my hope would be ... that this is a last warning to the utilities — that perhaps (the CPUC was) being a little more generous this year but they're on notice" when it comes to any deficiencies in 2021.

SDG&E started the program in 2019 and expects to complete it in 2023. The project's total price tag is estimated to come to $40 million.

With the program targeted at 80,000 trees, $40 million would work out to $500 per tree.

So far, workers have completed enhanced trimming on 24,500 trees, although the company said not all those trees were trimmed at a clearance of 25 feet. Trees are only trimmed at 25 feet where it is feasible, SDG&E officials said.

"SDG&E believes that the benefit of the enhanced trimming is well supported by data ... and is in the best interest of the safety of our customers and to the safety of the public in general," SDG&E's Iezza said.

As for the state's $21 billion wildfire fund, half of the money comes from California's investor-owned utilities. The other half comes from ratepayers across the state. AB 1054 extended a bond through the Department of Water Resources that was set to expire, estimated to cost utility customers $2.50 per month.

San Diego attorneys Michael Aguirre and Maria Severson have challenged AB 1054 in court, saying imposing the fee on utility customers was done without proper evidentiary hearings and violated due process guarantees under the U.S. Constitution.

___

Visit The San Diego Union-Tribune at www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.