2. Background
Santa Ana winds are strong, dry winds that occur periodically in Southern California. In October 2007, Santa Ana winds swept across Southern California and caused dozens of wildfires. The conflagration burned 780 square miles, killed 17 people, and destroyed thousands of homes and buildings. Hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated at the height of the fires. Transportation was disrupted over a large area for several days, including many road closures. Portions of the electric power network, public communication systems, and community water sources were destroyed. Several of the worst wildfires were reportedly ignited by power lines. These included the Grass Valley Fire (1,247 acres); the Malibu Canyon Fire (4,521 acres); the Rice Fire (9,472 acres); the Sedgewick Fire (710 acres); and the Guejito and Witch Fires (197,990 acres). The total area burned by these five power-line fires was more than 334 square miles.1
In response to the widespread devastation, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed Application (A.) 08-12-021 for authority to shut off electric power as a fire-prevention measure when Santa Ana winds reach a sustained speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) or wind gusts reach 55 mph accompanied by sustained winds of 30 mph. The Commission denied SDG&E's application in Decision (D.) 09-09-030, finding that SDG&E had not demonstrated that the fire-prevention benefits from its plan to shut off power outweighed the significant costs, burdens, and risks imposed on customers and communities in areas where power is shut off.
Importantly, D.09-09-030 distinguished between its denial of SDG&E's application and SDG&E's statutory authority under Pub. Util. Code § 451 and § 399.2(a)2 to shut off power in emergency situations:
Our denial of SDG&E's application does not affect SDG&E's authority under § 451 and § 399.2(a) to shut off power in emergency situations when necessary to protect public safety... SDG&E's statutory obligation [under § 451 and § 399.2(a)] to operate its system safely requires SDG&E to shut off its system if doing so is necessary to protect public safety. For example, there is no dispute that SDG&E may need to shut off power in order to protect public safety if Santa Ana winds exceed the design limits for SDG&E's system and threaten to topple power lines onto tinder dry brush. (D.09-09-030 at 61 - 62.)
The Commission concluded in D.09-09-030 that if SDG&E were to exercise its statutory authority to shut off power, the Commission could review SDG&E's decision after the fact for reasonableness.3
Although D.09-09-030 denied SDG&E's power shut-off plan, the decision encouraged SDG&E to develop and submit an improved shut-off plan. To this end, D.09-09-030 directed SDG&E to make a good-faith effort to develop a comprehensive fire-prevention program in collaboration with all stakeholders. The fire-prevention program had be based on a cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates (1) the program will result in a net reduction in wildfire ignitions, and (2) the benefits of the program outweigh any costs, burdens, or risks the program imposes on customers and communities. At the conclusion of the collaborative process, SDG&E was authorized to file an application for approval of the jointly developed fire-prevention program. If the collaborative process did not result in a consensus proposal, SDG&E was authorized to file an application containing its own proposed fire-prevention program.4
As required by D.09-09-030, SDG&E initiated a collaborative process to develop a comprehensive fire-prevention program. One of participants was Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA).5
On September 7, 2010, DisabRA filed a petition to modify D.09-09-030 pursuant to Rule 16.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The petition states that SDG&E informed the parties during the collaborative process that SDG&E intends to shut off power when strong winds exceeds the design basis for its utility poles and other factors (e.g., a declared Red Flag Warning) concurrently dictate such action. DisabRA's petition seeks to modify D.09-09-030 to require SDG&E to take appropriate and feasible steps to warn and protect its customers whenever it shuts off power pursuant to its statutory authority.
Responses to DisabRA's petition were filed by SDG&E, the County of San Diego, the Mussey Grade Road Alliance (MGRA), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and jointly by the Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) and Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA). DisabRA filed a reply on October 18, 2010.
A key issue raised in the responses to DisabRA's petition concerns the wind speed at which SDG&E may exercise its statutory authority to shut off power. Briefly, SCE and SDG&E assert that the Commission's General Order (GO) 95 requires electric utilities to design overhead power-line facilities to withstand a wind speed of 56 mph, and that electric utilities may exercise their statutory authority to shut off power when wind gusts exceed 56 mph.6 In contrast, CPSD and DRA contend that GO 95 requires overhead power-line facilities to withstand wind gusts of at least 91 mph, and that it would be unreasonable for SDG&E to shut off power at winds speeds below 91 mph.
On June 3, 2011, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling that directed SDG&E to file comments containing specified information about (1) the design of its overhead power-line facilities with respect to wind loads, and (2) the performance of its facilities in windy conditions. The other parties were also invited to file comments on these matters.
Opening comments were filed on July 25, 2011, by CPSD, MGRA, SCE, SDG&E, and a coalition of Communications Providers.7 Reply comments were filed on August 12, 2011, by CPSD, MGRA, SCE, and SDG&E.8 The parties were also provided an opportunity by the ALJ ruling dated June 3, 2011, to request an evidentiary hearing on wind-speed issues. There were no requests for an evidentiary hearing, and none was held.
1 Decision 12-01-032 at 5 - 6. The Rice, Guejito, and Witch Fires were in SDG&E's service territory. The Guejito and Witch Fires merged to become one fire.
2 All statutory references are denoted by the symbol "§" and refer to the California Public Utilities Code unless otherwise noted.
3 D.09-09-030 at 62.
4 D.09-09-030, Ordering Paragraphs 1 - 3.
5 On September 8, 2011, the Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) filed a motion for party status in this proceeding. The motion states that CforAT should replace DisabRA in this proceeding, and that DisabRA will cease to participate as an active party in this proceeding. The motion was granted in a ruling dated October 7, 2011. Today's decision uses "DisabRA" to refer to both DisabRA and CforAT.
6 GO 95 specifies several different wind-load requirements. Today's decision will use the wind-load requirements for overhead power-line facilities classified as Grade A and located in the Light-Loading District, unless otherwise indicated.
7 The Communications Providers are several AT&T entities and affiliates; CoxCom, Inc. and Cox California Telcom, LLC; CTIA-The Wireless Association; Time Warner Cable; and the California Cable & Telecommunications Association.
8 MGRA filed amended comments and reply comments on September 2, 2011. CPSD filed amended reply comments on September 7, 2011.
