Judge has more queries for PG&E about its plan to improve wildfire safety

SAN FRANCISCO -- The federal judge in charge of Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s probation ordered the utility Thursday to respond to concerns over whether it could have done more to prevent the devastating Northern California wildfires in the past two years.

Judge William Alsup of the Northern District, who submitted questions of his own, told PG&E attorneys to be "forthright" in "specifically admitting, denying, or clarifying for accuracy each and every statement" from plaintiffs' attorneys in their declaration outlining problems they identified with the utility's risk management practices and corporate governance, according to his order.

After the judge grilled PG&E attorney Reid Schar for saying it would take eight years to implement a full reinspection of its electrical grid to remove all vegetation that could impair electrical operations at a Jan. 30 probation hearing, the utility said it would take even longer to fully clear overhanging tree limbs above transmission lines, which was identified as a serious fire risk, according to its mitigation plan.

Alsup asked PG&E to clarify its insistence it would take the company many years to address the problem.

"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 ten years for PG&E to complete its work on the lines located within the High Fire Threat Districts alone," Alsup wrote. "Is this correct?"

PG&E attributed the lengthy implementation time in its mitigation plan to a lack of "adequately-trained personnel" and "limitations on the supply of necessary materials needed for the volume of work."

Alsup's other inquiries concerned federal and state vegetation clearance requirements.

"If the answer is anything other than an unqualified yes, state all reasons for noncompliance," Alsup wrote, asking if PG&E is in full compliance with Section 4293 of the California Public Resources Code.

PG&E has until Feb. 22 to respond. U.S. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 14-CR00175 (N.D. Cal., filed April 1, 2014).

The utility will also have to address a host of accusations from attorneys for plaintiffs whose homes burned in wildfires who have sued PG&E concerning the utility's risk management practices, including choosing not to de-energize lines during hazardous weather conditions.

They assailed PG&E for causing significantly more wildfires than its Southern California counterpart.

PG&E electrical equipment caused 1,552 wildfires between 2014 to 2017 while Southern California Edison's infrastructure sparked just 344 over the same period "despite the similarities in service size and miles of distribution lines," according to the plaintiffs' attorneys' declaration.

One of the many recommendations proposed in the declaration included immediate adoption of San Diego Gas & Electric Co.'s de-energization policy and reinspecting lines in high fire risk areas.

The attorneys represent thousands of wildfire survivors in civil litigation and have extensive experience battling the utility for prior mishaps, including the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion which resulted in PG&E's probation.

Frank Pitre of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Dario de Ghetaldi of Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & Riddle LLP and Steve Campora of Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora LLP submitted the declarations at Alsup's request when they made a surprise appearance at PG&E's probation hearing on Jan. 30.

"There are serious problems with the ways PG&E conducts risk management activities," Pitre said at the hearing. "If there are improvements PG&E sees it can do right now, let's do it."