Is the SDG&E Fire Shut-Off Monster Vanquished?

Union-TribUNE reporter Onell Soto got it pretty much right -- SDG&E's specific shut-off plan was shot down by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on September 10th.   But the utility may have gotten what it really wanted:  liability protection.

CPUC finally put
SDG&E's backcountry shut-off plan to rest by rejecting its 
proposal to turn off power during times of peak fire risk.   But the decision isn't as clear-cut as it appears.   In their oral remarks justifying the decision, CPUC
Commissioners asserted that SDG&E already had the legal authority
to shut off power to the backcountry.  SDG&E seized upon these
comments in its press release issued after the decision. SDG&E CEO
Debra Reed is quoted as saying:

"While we are disappointed in today's ruling on the shut-off
component of our overall community fire safety program, it's important
to point out that the CPUC reaffirmed SDG&E's statutory authority
and responsibility to operate our system safely."

So, is the shut-off monster really vanquished?   Ask Godzilla.  Ask
Jason.   Ask Paris Hilton.  It may be in hiding, but when when the
Santa Ana winds blow, this monster may awaken in an entirely different
guise.  

READ UCAN's EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MICHAEL SHAMES' COMMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE STORY BELOW

Shut-off shut down
SDG&E didn't prove case to cut fire risk, PUC says
By Onell R. Soto

2:00 a.m. September 11, 2009

State regulators yesterday rejected San Diego Gas & Electric Co.'s plan to cut power to rural sections of the county during dry, windy weather, but may have left open the door for the company to cut power anyway.

The California Public Utilities Commission said the company failed to prove that its plan to leave swaths of the county without power during times of high fire risk would reduce the possibility of fire.

The commission said the company also failed to prove that the benefits of the plan outweighed its risks - such as people stuck without communications, water or the ability to open an electric garage door.

"They didn't make the case adequately for what they proposed," commission President Michael Peevey said during the meeting in San Francisco.

The commission did say that SDG&E has the authority to cut power if it thinks it's necessary for public-safety reasons. It gave an example: if winds are stronger than what power poles are designed to withstand. But it didn't say exactly what that means.

Yesterday, the PUC also rejected a rule change SDG&E had requested that would have relieved the company of liability if anyone was hurt or property was damaged when it decided to cut power for something other than repairs, maintenance or an emergency.

It's unclear what SDG&E will do now.

Spokeswoman Stephanie Donovan said the company hasn't decided its next step. Chief Executive Debra Reed and other SDG&E executives declined interview requests yesterday, instead issuing a statement expressing disappointment but noting that the company has the "authority and responsibility to operate our system safely."

Reed said Tuesday that "if the CPUC says we can't shut it off, we're not going to disobey the CPUC."

Donovan wouldn't say what the commission's action means to the company, nor would she preclude the possibility of a shut-off notwithstanding the PUC's decision.

"We need to take a look in more detail at the commission's decision and what they've asked us to do," Donovan said.

Consumer advocate Michael Shames said the decision and SDG&E's response leave the company with a lot of wiggle room and could prepare it for a legal defense should its power lines spark a massive blaze.

Shames, executive director of UCAN, the Utility Consumers' Action Network, has long held that the shut-off plan was aimed at reducing the company's liability for damage caused by its power lines.

"They got what they needed," Shames said. "So they'll resort to a shut-off if they need to, but in reality they likely won't. They got the measure of liability protection they need."

SDG&E Chief Operating Officer Michael Niggli said last week that a PUC rejection of the company's shut-off plan could help its defense if it were sued for an incident during the conditions in which it wanted to cut power.

To help prevent massive wildfires, SDG&E proposed cutting power to as much as one-third of San Diego County - affecting about 130,000 people - during a red-flag warning, when brush is tinder-dry, humidity is low and winds make firefighting difficult.

Get the original  SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE story here.