11. Assignment of the Proceeding

Timothy Alan Simon is the assigned Commissioner for A.08-12-021 and Timothy Kenney is the assigned ALJ.

Findings of Fact

1. The purpose of SDG&E's Power Shut-Off Plan is to prevent the ignition of wildfires by shutting off power lines during hazardous fire conditions.

2. Although shutting off power eliminates the risk of power lines igniting fires, it also increases the number of potential ignition sources as people use alternate means for cooking, lighting, and power, such as candles, lanterns, fireplaces, barbeques, hibachis, camp stoves, and portable generators.

3. Wildfires that occur in areas where power is shut off are a much greater threat to public safety than wildfires that occur where power is on.

4. SDG&E's Power Shut-Off Plan imposes significant costs, burdens, and risks on customers and communities in areas where power is shut off.

5. SDG&E did not demonstrate that its Power Shut-Off Plan will result in an overall reduction in the number of wildfires, or that the public safety benefits of its Plan exceed the significant costs, burdens, and risks that are imposed on customers and communities in areas where power is shut off.

6. SDG&E's power lines pose an ongoing fire hazard. SDG&E and the Commission have implemented numerous measures to reduce the fire hazard to an acceptable level, including (i) the elements of SDG&E's Community Fire Safety Program other than its Power Shut-Off plan, and (ii) the Commission's General Order 95.

7. The purpose of the Commission's ADR program is to facilitate informal resolution of disputes in order to improve decision making, conserve Commission resources, and to identify parties' fundamental interests.

8. One purpose of SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 is to allow SDG&E to shut off power in a manner consistent with its Power Shut-Off Plan.

9. SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 will do little to help its customers understand that power may be shut off unexpectedly in order to protect public safety because most customers will never read the Tariff.

10. Most customers already expect that SDG&E will shut off power when necessary to protect public safety, thereby making SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14 superfluous.

11. There is no evidence that PG&E's Tariff Rule 14 was filed to implement a power shut-off program like the one proposed by SDG&E.

12. In Resolution ALJ 176-3228, dated January 29, 2009, the Commission preliminarily determined that there was a need for evidentiary hearings in this proceeding. The preliminary determination on the need for hearings was affirmed in the Scoping Memo, but the Scoping Memo also directed parties to file motions for evidentiary hearings.

13. There were no motions for evidentiary hearings.

Conclusions of Law

1. A.08-12-021 should be denied without prejudice because SDG&E has not met its burden to demonstrate that (i) its Power Shut-Off Plan will decrease the number of wildfires, and (ii) the benefits of its Power Shut-Off Plan outweigh the significant costs, burdens, and risks imposed on customers and communities in the areas where power is shut off under the Plan.

2. SDG&E should make a good faith effort to develop a comprehensive fire-prevention program in collaboration with other stakeholders, including the parties to A.08-12-021, that is based on a thorough and detailed cost-benefit analysis that addresses the matters identified in the body of today's decision.

3. SDG&E has authority under §§ 451 and 399.2(a) to shut off power in emergency situations when necessary to protect public safety. Any decision by SDG&E to shut off power may be reviewed by the Commission pursuant to its broad jurisdiction regarding the safety of public utility operations and facilities.

4. Because today's decision does not authorize SDG&E to implement its Power Shut-Off Plan, there is no need to (i) adopt SDG&E's proposed revisions to Tariff Rule 14, or (ii) decide if the proposed revisions would permit SDG&E to shut off power under the circumstances described in its Power Shut-Off Plan.

5. PG&E's Tariff Rule 14 was filed to implement direct access and, therefore, does not constitute a reasonable precedent for revising SDG&E's Tariff Rule 14 for the purpose of implementing a power shut-off program.

6. SDG&E's proposed revisions to Electric Tariff Rule 14 should be denied.

7. There is no need for evidentiary hearings in this proceeding. This changed determination on the need for hearings should be approved by the Commission in accordance with Rule 7.5 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

8. The following Order should be effective immediately.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. San Diego Gas & Electric Company's Application (A.) 08-12-021 is denied without prejudice. Any future application filed by San Diego Gas & Electric Company to implement a power shut-off program shall include a cost-benefit study that addresses the matters identified in the body of today's decision.

2. Within 30 days from the effective date of today's decision, San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall initiate a collaborative process with other stakeholders, including the parties to A.08-12-021, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on (i) the design and conduct of the cost-benefit study indentified in the previous ordering paragraph, and (ii) the development and submittal of a joint fire-prevention program. San Diego Gas & Electric Company and the parties may use the Commission's Alternative Dispute Resolution program for this purpose. If Alternative Dispute Resolution is selected, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and the parties shall attempt to agree on the type of Commission Alternative Dispute Resolution process they would like to use and then contact the Commission's Alternative Dispute Resolution coordinator for assistance.

3. At the conclusion of the collaborative process described in the previous ordering paragraph, San Diego Gas & Electric Company may file an application for approval of the jointly developed fire-prevention program. The application shall include (i) a copy of the cost-benefit study that is described in the body of today's decision; (ii) detailed plans and timelines for mitigating any adverse impacts on customers and communities; and (iii) a proponent's environmental assessment, if appropriate. If the collaborative process does not result in a consensus proposal, San Diego Gas & Electric Company may file an application containing its own proposed fire-prevention program. San Diego Gas & Electric Company's proposal shall be based on the previously identified cost-benefit study and its application shall include the previously identified documents and information. If San Diego Gas & Electric Company chooses to not file an application, it shall file and serve a notice of its decision on the service list for A.08-12-021. The notice shall include an explanation for San Diego Gas & Electric Company's decision.

4. There is no need for evidentiary hearings in this proceeding.

5. A.08-12-021 is closed.

This Order is effective today.

Dated September 10, 2009, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

President

DIAN M. GRUENEICH

JOHN A. BOHN

RACHELLE B. CHONG

Commissioners

I reserve the right to file a concurrence.

/s/ RACHELLE B. CHONG