5. Discussion
We take very seriously our obligation to protect public safety on matters within the scope of our jurisdiction. There is perhaps no better example of our commitment to protecting the public than GO 95. This GO is over 500 pages long and contains comprehensive guidelines for the design, construction, and maintenance of overhead electric lines. These guidelines are specifically intended to provide the public with a high level of protection from the hazards associated with overhead electric lines, including fire-related risks.
The paramount importance we place on public safety can be seen in CPSD's investigation of the October 2007 wildfires. The ultimate objective of the investigation is to identify the root causes of the wildfires so that corrective actions can be taken to prevent future wildfires.
SDG&E urges the Commission to open a rulemaking now and to exclude CPSD's investigation from the scope of the rulemaking. We believe that SDG&E's request is premature. While it is laudable that SDG&E wants to implement solutions quickly in the wake of the catastrophic wildfires of October 2007, SDG&E's approach would place the proverbial cart before the horse. If we were to adopt regulations without knowing exactly how overhead electric lines contributed to the ignition of the October 2007 wildfires, there is a real possibility that the adopted regulations would not address the root causes of the fires, thereby leaving the public at risk. The better approach is for CPSD to first ascertain the causes of the wildfires and then for the Commission to take appropriate actions based on CPSD's investigation.
SDG&E's Petition sidesteps the need to address the causes of the October 2007 wildfires by asserting that California faces a significant and growing risk from wildfires, and that it behooves the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider a wide range of proposals to reduce the wildfire hazards of overhead power lines. We appreciate and share SDG&E's concern about wildfires. We welcome at any time proposals from utilities or other stakeholders to lessen the fire-related risks of overhead electric lines, provided the proposals are sufficiently developed that their need, costs, benefits, and environmental impacts can be identified and assessed. The proposals in SDG&E's Petition lacked these essential attributes.
Instead of definitive proposals, SDG&E's Petition describes in broad terms the issues that should be considered in a rulemaking proceeding and suggests a process for doing so. The Commission's Rules are designed to avoid unfocused proceedings. Rule 6.3(b) states, in part, as follows:
A petition [for a rulemaking proceeding] must concisely state the justification for the requested relief, and if adoption or amendment of a regulation is sought, the petition must include specific proposed wording for that regulation. (Emphasis added.)
SDG&E's Petition clearly contemplates the adoption of new regulations, but it did not provide the specific wording required by Rule 6.3(b).6 At its core, the Petition amounts to little more than an outline of possible actions the Commission could take to reduce the wildfire hazards of overhead electric lines.
SDG&E's other topics for the proposed rulemaking are likewise unripe for consideration at this time. These topics are (1) how to better coordinate disaster management among governmental bodies and utilities; and (2) the development and funding of a statewide disaster management plan. These matters are largely outside of the Commission's jurisdiction and expertise. Primary responsibility for statewide disaster planning and management lies with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES).7 SDG&E has not identified any problems with OES's performance, and nor have any of the parties responding to SDG&E's Petition. There is no need for the Commission to delve into statewide disaster planning and management under these circumstances.8
We decline to adopt CBD/SC's and MGRA's recommendation to postpone new transmission lines, such as STP, until safety features adopted in response to the October 2007 wildfires can be incorporated into the design of new lines. There is no assurance that there will be new regulations; the possibility that there might be does not justify a sweeping injunction against all new transmission lines. Moreover, wildfire issues are being addressed in the STP proceeding, and it makes no sense to address STP wildfire issues in other proceedings as well.9
For the preceding reasons, we conclude that SDG&E's Petition should be denied without prejudice. Our denial of the Petition does not signal any diminishment in our resolve to protect Californians from the wildfire-related risks of overhead electric lines. It is our intent that CPSD should conduct a thorough investigation of the October 2007 wildfires, and that CPSD's investigation should take into account Cal Fire's investigation. We anticipate that CPSD's investigation will play an important role in formulating an appropriate response to the October 2007 wildfires, including the determination of what measures should be adopted to reduce the wildfire hazards of overhead electric lines in fire prone wildlands and other particular circumstances.
CPSD is currently in the midst of its investigation of the October 2007 wildfires. The purpose of CPSD's investigation is to make an independent determination of the causes of wildfires that were ignited, either directly or indirectly, by the operations, practices, or facilities of investor-owned utilities, or by some other causes. Cal Fire is conducting its own investigation of the October 2007 wildfires.
The scope of CPSD's investigation shall include whether and how the overhead electric lines of investor-owned utilities (IOUs) contributed to the ignition of the October 2007 wildfires; whether the overhead lines involved in the wildfires were designed, constructed, and maintained properly; whether trees were trimmed properly; and whether any of the wildfires was an unavoidable consequence of extreme weather. The IOUs shall cooperate promptly and fully with CPSD's investigation. We also expect other individuals and entities from whom CPSD seeks information to cooperate. CPSD shall take any and all appropriate steps to secure needed information if its investigation is hindered in any fashion.
Once its investigation is complete, CPSD shall prepare a comprehensive report that addresses the wildfires investigated by CPSD. The report should describe CPSD's investigation, explain in detail the cause of each wildfire, and provide recommendations for preventing a recurrence of future wildfires from the same causes identified in CPSD's report. The report may also address any other matters that CPSD deems appropriate. CPSD shall submit its report to the Executive Director no later than July 31, 2008, and concurrently file the report at the Commission's Docket Office and serve the report on the service list for this proceeding.
Finally, CPSD's investigation and report should address the results of Cal Fire's separate investigation. Thus, the completion date for CPSD's report is dependent on when Cal Fire finishes its investigation. If Cal Fire is delayed in finishing its investigation, CPSD may ask the Executive Director pursuant to Rule 16.6 for an extension of time to submit its report.
6 The assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) asked SDG&E to file and serve a document that provides the specific wording required by Rule 6.3(b) or to explain why SDG&E could not comply with Rule 6.3(b). In its response filed on November 29, 2007, SDG&E declined to provide the specific wording required by Rule 6.3(b), stating that it would be "premature for one party to start making recommendations without the benefit of all the facts and opinions from other stakeholders." (SDG&E 11/29/07 Response at p. 2.)
7 OES is responsible for (i) ensuring the State's readiness to respond to and recover from natural and manmade emergencies, and (ii) assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.
8 These topics have been addressed by the Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force, which investigated the 2007 fires and has issued a report on ways that federal, state, and local governments can better prevent and fight future fires. The Task Force includes representatives from county and city firefighting officials, Cal Fire, OES, state fire chiefs, and labor unions representing firefighters. The Governor's proposed budget for fiscal year 2008-2009 includes funding for many of the Task Force's recommendations.
9 This decision in no way prejudges the outcome of the STP proceeding or any other proceeding regarding proposed transmission lines.
