II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF CPSD REPORT

On October 21, 2007, three wooden utility poles in Malibu, which CPSD asserts were jointly owned and maintained by Respondents, broke and fell to the ground at approximately 4:30 AM. The poles were shared among the Respondents, and supported live electrical wires, and communication utility equipment. When the utility poles broke, electrical contact with the nearby vegetation occurred and caused a fire that the Los Angeles (LA) County Fire Department described in its report, "spread rapidly due to steep terrain and high winds".

The fire burned about 3,836 acres in the Malibu area, destroyed 14 structures and 36 vehicles, and damaged 19 other structures. The LA County Fire Department's Report on this fire concludes that the fire started from an electrical contact with the vegetation near the three poles that fell on October 21, 2007. The LA County Fire Department Report also states that the wind at the time of incident was blowing at approximately 50 mph which contributed to the spread of the fire. CPSD reports that no person was injured by the fire or the firefighting that followed it.

On November 8, 2007, CPSD staff commenced an investigation to determine whether the Respondents, or any of them, violated any of the Commission's general orders or other Commission and state regulations or standards, and whether any such violation caused or contributed to the fire that occurred. CPSD has provided its investigation report (dated October 21, 2008) to the Commission. Pursuant to Resolution No. L-370 the CPSD investigation report was released on December 18, 2008 (CPSD Report). The CPSD report is attached to this order.

CPSD concludes in its report that the loading on the three Malibu utility poles was in violation of Commission General Order (GO) 95, Rules for Electric Overhead Construction. CPSD's investigation also concludes that Respondents failed to inspect and maintain the poles within the standards specified in the GO 95. CPSD contends that Respondents violated GO 95 "including but not limited to Rules 12.2, 31.1, 31.2, 43.2, 44.1, and 44.2 for failing to safely and properly maintain, inspect, replace, and reinforce their poles and other facilities, and for failing to prevent their safety factors to fall below the minimum requirements specified in GO 95." We understand "Safety Factors" are the minimum allowable ratios of ultimate strengths of materials to the maximum working stresses.  The safety factors in General Order 95 are requirements meant to ensure that utility poles will withstand loading of equipment and external forces, such as resultant stresses due to wind.  CPSD alleges that one or more of the utility poles were not maintained in compliance with the wind loading requirements of General Order 95.  CPSD believes that this caused the poles to break in winds in which they were required to withstand.

Further, CPSD concludes that the violations of GO 95 were the primary cause of the utility poles breaking and the ensuing fire, and that absent the violations the utility poles would have amply withstood the approximately 50 mph Santa Ana winds that occurred in the vicinity of the incident on October 21, 2007.

CPSD also contends that some of the Respondents have presented a confused and incomplete response to its inquiries as to their joint and individual responsibilities to ensure compliance with the Commission's general orders. Apparently Sprint and NextG did not maintain records of any pole loading assessments performed when additional equipment was installed on the utility poles. Therefore, it is unclear whether Sprint and NextG made appropriate assessments to ascertain GO 95 compliance. Because no records were made available on pole loading assessments conducted by Sprint or NextG, CPSD is unable at this time to assess which communication company may have first overloaded the facilities, or how or whether the other Respondents reacted to the alleged overloading or otherwise sought to ensure their compliance with GO 95.

The Commission has reached no conclusion or made no finding that Respondents, or any of them, have violated any general orders or other requirements or standards. However, CPSD's report has presented us with sufficient evidence and good cause to commence a formal investigation to ascertain whether such violations have occurred, and if so, the proper remedy for such violations. We are also concerned by the apparent lack of construction and maintenance coordination among the Respondents that CPSD alleges occurred for utility owned and maintained poles and appurtenant equipment, and which by law each and all Respondents are responsible to construct and maintain in compliance with Commission GO 95. We expect to have a better understanding after this investigation ends as to how each Respondent views its individual and joint responsibility to comply with GO 95 with respect to shared utility facilities such as joint utility poles.