After regulator’s comment, federal judge eases PG&E order

In an unexpected move Thursday, a federal judge walked back on his proposed order that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. assess all it knows about dangerous trees near energy lines when considering potential shutoffs and, instead, downgraded it to a recommendation.

Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California, who has been sharply critical of the utility behemoth, came to his decision following pushback from the California Public Utilities Commission, which argued that public safety power shutoffs would inconvenience many residents living in rural areas, and should be a method of last resort.

Last month, Alsup, who has been overseeing PG&E's criminal probation, mulled whether or not to force the utility to conduct more power shutoffs in wind events during wildfire season. PG&E, which was convicted for the 2010 San Bruno pipeline rupture, could be found in violation of its probation now that it has been implicated in the 2019 Kincade Wildfire. USA v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 3:14-CR-00175 (N.D. Cal., filed April 1, 2014)

"The Court agrees that [public safety power shutoff] events should be a last resort. Due to PG&E's neglect over many years however, our power grid remains overgrown with hazard trees poised to strike during windstorms and unleash catastrophic wildfires," Alsup wrote in his order Thursday. "So our backs remain against the wall and last resorts are necessary."

"And, when deciding whether to leave a borderline circuit on versus off, public safety should always take priority over inconvenience and hardship, it being preferable to lose power than to lose lives. Again, the above are recommendations, not orders," the judge added.

The reason for these disastrous fires, from the Wine Country fires in Sonoma in 2017, the 2018 Camp Fire, according to Alsup is that, "the root cause is that over many years PG&E robbed its tree clearance budget--why is not now pertinent but it's obvious it was to enhance the bottom line," the judge wrote.

Previously, Alsup wanted the utility to take into account all the information it has concerning the extent to which trees are in danger of hitting energy lines in high wildfire prone areas when determining future blackouts. This decision came after the 2020 Zogg Fire that killed four people in Shasta County, sparked by a gray pine tree that was marked for removal in 2018 but never was. The utility said in January that it would accept Alsup's proposal on the condition that it would be credited for considering all of the knowledge it has about hazardous trees.

PG&E later counter-proposed to follow the judge's orders with a few changes: that it would tag higher priority trees within its service territory subject to potential shut offs, unless it shows in writing that shut offs won't be necessary. PG&E also wanted to use a method of tagging and ranking trees most at risk for hitting lines.

Alsup said Thursday the counter-proposal might work, but that it wouldn't have prevented the Zogg Fire, "and those four victims would have burned to death anyway." Alsup also noted the number of power shutoffs decreased in 2019 and stayed the same in 2020.

"Remembering that 2019 was the only year in which the [public safety power shutoff] program succeeded in stopping wildfires caused by PG&E distribution lines, it would be a step backward to bless PG&E's criteria," Alsup wrote. Only a few trees would be taken down under PG&E's tagging method anyway, and wouldn't result in any more circuits being de-energized, the judge reasoned.

"To finalize the criteria proposed by PG&E in the form of a federal court order would give PG&E a 'Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card,' a card it could and would play in every civil lawsuit and criminal prosecution arising out of future wildfires based on PG&E's failure to de-energize at-risk circuits," Alsup wrote. "It would smile and say, 'we did what the judge and the CPUC said to do and they said that considering the sliver of information would count as considering all information."

PG&E has until July 1 to tell the judge how much of his recommendations it is following.

"We are reviewing the court's recent orders. We disagree with certain of the court's characterization of our actions, but we share the aim of advancing public safety, and we will continue working with the court and all stakeholders to advance this shared objective," said James Noonan, PG&E spokesman.