III. SUMMARY OF THE CPSD REPORT (WITCH AND RICE)

A. Witch Fire

The CPSD Report alleged that on October 21, 2007, SDG&E's 69 kV overhead conductors between SDG&E poles Z416675 and Z416676 contacted each other during Santa Ana wind conditions, starting a fire. The CPSD Report referenced the Cal Fire Report, dated July 9, 2008, which indicated that the Witch Fire was started by arcing power lines located between SDG&E poles Z416675 and Z416676.

CPSD alleged that SDG&E was in violation of CPUC General Order (GO) 95, Rule 31.1 and Rule 38 at the time of the incident. The CPSD Report recommended that the Commission issue an Order Instituting Investigation (OII) to examine the extent to which SDG&E violated General Order 95, Rule 31.1 and Rule 38. It also indicated that the OII should consider whether or not SDG&E should conduct a survey of its transmission and distribution lines to determine all the locations where conductor clearances are potentially in violation of Rule 38 and adopt remedial measures, where necessary, to ensure that conductors maintain the minimum required clearances.

The CPSD Report described interviews, documents and inspections of physical evidence, which CPSD believes support the claim that SDG&E was in violation of GO 95. For instance, CPSD stated that SDG&E had indicated that its 69 kV C phase conductor made contact with the A and B phase conductors.

B. Rice Fire

The CPSD Report alleged that on October 22, 2007, a sycamore tree limb broke and fell on SDG&E's 12 kV overhead conductors between SDG&E poles 213072 and 112340, causing the conductors to break and fall to the ground. The CPSD Report referenced the Cal Fire Report, dated July 9, 2008, which indicated that the Rice Fire was started by downed power lines located between SDG&E poles 213072 and 112340.

CPSD alleged that SDG&E was in violation of CPUC General Order (GO) 95, Rule 31.1 at the time of the incident. The CPSD Report recommended that the Commission issue an Order Instituting Investigation (OII) to examine the extent to which SDG&E violated GO 95, Rule 31.1, with respect to its tree trimming practices. It also indicated that in the OII, the Commission should determine whether or not SDG&E should be directed to immediately review and streamline its vegetation management procedures.

The CPSD Report described interviews, documents and inspections of physical evidence, which CPSD believes support the claim that SDG&E was in violation of GO 95. For instance, CPSD stated that a Pre-trim Inspector employed by Davey Tree, an agent of SDG&E, indicated that the subject sycamore tree should have been trimmed within three months of its inspection because of his belief that it would have encroached within a four foot distance of the line within that timeframe. The subject sycamore tree was allegedly not trimmed until after the Rice Fire had started, which was after that timeframe. The CPSD Report also pointed to apparently excessive trimming of the subject tree that occurred after the fire had started. CPSD implied that the manner in which the tree was trimmed made it difficult to determine the nature of the tree's failure. CPSD also indicated that internal rot within the sycamore tree may have contributed to the tree's failure.

C. Failure to Cooperate with CPSD

The CPSD Report further documented certain interactions between CPSD staff and SDG&E employees which CPSD believes support the claim SDG&E failed to fully cooperate with CPSD, as required by law. For instance, early in the investigation, SDG&E apparently informed CPSD that it would not be allowed to interview SDG&E personnel because SDG&E had not yet completed its own investigation. During the scheduled site visits, SDG&E also apparently refused to answer specific questions about the incident. SDG&E's reporting of the incident was also described as not containing specific details. According to the CPSD Report, escalation to the legal departments for both SDG&E and CPSD was required before interviews of witnesses were permitted by SDG&E.