Regulators looking at backcountry risk


By Dean Calbreath
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Last week, an administrative law judge at the California Public Utilities Commission ordered SDG&E to provide information about what it will do and how muchmoney it will spend to lessen the risk of wildfires along the proposed power line's route.

Earlier this month, a PUC panel devoted more than 300 pages of an environmental report to assessing the fire risks posed by the power line and a number of alternative plans.

In the meantime, the PUC's Consumer Protection and Safety Division is investigating SDG&E's role in last October's wildfires. In November, Cal Fire – the state firefighting authority – determined that the Witch Creek and Rice Canyon fires, which began the week of Oct. 21 and destroyed nearly 1,350 homes, were sparked by downed SDG&E power lines.

SDG&E officials downplay the risk that Sunrise would cause wildfires. They note that the bulk of the project, a $1.3 billion, 150-mile transmission line that would cross through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, consists of tall steel towers carrying 500-kilovolt lines that rarely cause fires.

“High-voltage transmission lines have proven to be the most fire-safe of all of our facilities,” said Christy Heiser, a spokeswoman for Sempra Energy, SDG&E's parent company.

Heiser noted that the Southwest Powerlink, a 500-kilovolt line that connects San Diego County with Arizona, has never caused a fire during its 23-year history.

“Typically, high-voltage lines are not the problem,” she said. “It's when you get to lines in neighborhoods that more risk occurs.”

Nevertheless, critics have seized on the Witch Creek fire as proof that the Sunrise project could also raise the risk of wildfires.

“Fire is now on the minds of everyone in California, and especially in Southern California,” said Diane Conklin, spokeswoman for the Mussey Grade Road Alliance, which has long contended that Sunrise would increase the region's fire risk. “The fact that the most destructive October 2007 wildfires in San Diego County . . . were ignited by SDG&E's power lines cannot be ignored.”

The Mussey Grade group first brought the wildfire issue to the PUC's attention during a hearing last May. Conklin's husband, Joseph Mitchell, a technology consultant in Ramona, produced a study of California fires from 1960 through 2007 that showed that fires caused by downed power lines are about 20 times larger than the average fire, mostly because they are caused by catastrophic events, such as windstorms.

Spurred in part by filings by Mitchell and the Sierra Club, the PUC launched a review of the risk of fires posed by the Sunrise project as well as half a dozen possible alternatives. The PUC found that most of the projects entailed increased risk of wildfire, including Sunrise.

An environmental report issued earlier this month found that the construction of Sunrise “would increase the probability of igniting a catastrophic wildfire above base-line conditions.” The agency found that the impact would be particularly significant around Ramona and Poway “due to the extremely high risk of fire in these areas and due to the unacceptably high number of homes at risk even during normal weather conditions.”

Sempra's Heiser noted that the report was only a draft and that SDG&E would have a chance to respond to its criticisms in coming weeks.

At the same time, SDG&E has been ordered to provide more information to the PUC about its operations during the wildfires as well as the potential risks of the Sunrise project.

Just weeks after the October wildfires, San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network filed a request for SDG&E to provide the PUC with testimony about the fires' impact on its operations. In its response, SDG&E said the request was “pure grandstanding on UCAN's part.” It also said the PUC had no basis for compelling its testimony.

In a ruling issued Thursday, PUC administrative law judge Steven Weissman ruled otherwise.

“Whether or not SDG&E wants to do so, the commission has an obligation to develop a record that fully explores the safety and cost implications of constructing and operating lines in areas of high fire risk,” Weissman wrote.

Weissman ordered SDG&E to provide information on a wide variety of topics raised by the wildfires, including:

The cost of mitigating fire risks along the planned route.

The impact of the fire risk on insurance and maintenance costs.

The financial liabilities that SDG&E and its customers will be exposed to by the October wildfires or potential liabilities from future SDG&E-caused fires.

The need to consider alternate routes or put more power lines underground as a result of the fires.

The costs and methods of responding to the loss of major transmission links during the October wildfires.

The extent to which SDG&E relied on power from Baja California during the wildfires.

The duration of simultaneous fire-caused outages of both the Southwest Powerlink and existing transmission lines around the proposed route for the Sunrise line.

Michael Shames, who heads UCAN, said: “I thought the questions we asked were pretty common-sense things related to the transmission lines, but SDG&E's response was jaw-dropping. Essentially, they were saying, 'We don't have to give you that information and you can't make us.' I'm pleased that the CPUC has told them no.”

Sempra's Heiser said the ruling would give SDG&E a chance to respond to questions about its operations.

Dean Calbreath: (619) 293-1891; dean.calbreath [at] uniontrib [dot] com