ALJ Poryay: The Commission will come to order. This is the pre hearing conference in the matter of the order to show cause, or OSC, regarding Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or PG&E, that was issued on November 12, 2019, in proceeding R1812005. I am administrative law judge Poryay. Seated next to me are is the assigned Commissioner, President Batjer. The the co assigned administrative law judge ALJ Semcer, and Commissioners Randolph and Guzman Aceves. A few brief notes on how things are gonna proceed. We are being webcast today and transcribed. So it's very important that you talk into the mic and do so clearly that so we have a great transcript and the folks who are listening on the Webcasts can hear. So we have folks at the bench. But to the extent other parties are going to speak, please do so at the dais and remember to turn on the mic. Whenever you do, speak, please, each time, say your name and your organization. It's important for the clarity of the transcript. We will indicate the appropriate time when we need parties to talk. And just a reminder. We have a lot to cover in today's PHC. So we ask that parties are concise. I'm gonna go over the agenda for today's PHC. First, we're gonna touch on party or service list issues. Next, we will address the categories categorization of the OSC phase of the proceeding and ex parte requirements. Then we're going to provide a brief overview of the OSC and other related proceedings. After that, we'll move on to the scope of the OSC phase of the proceeding. Whether there are disputed issues of fact, if evidentiary hearings are needed, and the schedule of the OSC phase. There will not be any final rulings today regarding the scope, need for hearings, or schedule. The assigned Commissioner will decide those matters in the scoping memo. That concludes my initial remarks. President Batjer, do you have any remarks?
President Batjer: I didn't follow instructions very well, did I? Thank you, Judge Perrier and Judge Semcer, and good afternoon to those in attendance and participating electronically. Today we begin a process for PG&E to show cause why it should not be sanctioned by the Commission for its failure to properly communicate with its customers and coordinate with local governments during the public safety power shut offs events of October 9th through the 12th and October 23rd through November 1st. In 2018, the CPUC issued a resolution directing the IOUs to strengthen their customer notification requirements and to engage with local communities in developing their PSPS programs. After hearing concerns in the public, the CPUC opened a rulemaking and held several workshops to evaluate the PSPS programs further and to establish detailed requirements. As a result of this process, the CPUC issued a decision on May 2019 directing the IOUs to make improvements to communication and notification protocols. In addition, the CPUC partnered with CalOES and CalFire to work with utilities on detailed PSPS protocols, and throughout the recent PSPS events, the CPUC stayed engaged with embedded staff at the IOU emergency operations centers, and issuing letters and directives to resolve issues as they arose in real time. The IOU's plans for these events, however, are only effective when they are implemented in a reasonable and competent manner. What we saw play out in October PSPS events in PG&E territory did not meet the expectations of its customers. PG&E execution has been the subject of regulatory and legislative hearings as well as many media reports. We have also received letters from local and tribal governments describing the lack of coordination until the power shut offs commenced, the lack of critical information flow, and in some instances, breakdown in communication entirely. The CPUC now has various processes in place to work towards the, to work towards the IOUs, including PG&E, being better prepared for the next wildfire season and executing more effective PSPS events. A part of being prepared for the future is looking back at what worked and what indeed did not. And understanding why. I look forward to this process to help inform that future as well as in ensuring there is accountability for past and future PSPS events. Thank you.
ALJ Poryay: Thank you. President Batjer Batjer. Commissioners Randolph or Guzman Aceves, do you have any remarks? Thank you. One more note before ALJ Semcer takes over. Just wanna remind folks is the PHC is a formal part of the proceeding, so parties only are to be participating today, but we will be providing opportunity for the public to weigh in in the future. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. I am Melissa Semcer. I'm also a co-assigned administrative law judge in this proceeding. I'm going to turn first to some requests for party status, and then we'll move on from there. The first request that I have is from PG&E, and it's from Ann Kim. And it's just to be added to the service list of this proceeding. Miss Kim, if I'm correct, you'll be representing PG&E in the order to show cause portion of this proceeding. Correct?
Miss Kim: That is correct. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Miss Kim is added to the service list. I have a request for a party status from the Western States Petroleum Association from Michael Alcantar. Mr. Alcantar, are you here? Could you please come up to the microphone? We have people on the web, so any speaking today needs to happen into a mic. It's okay.
Ben Ellis: Good afternoon. My name is Ben Ellis. I'm standing in for Michael Alcantar.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, so my understanding was that Western States
Petroleum Association already had party status in this proceeding
Ben Ellis: Oh, they do. I was lead to believe differently.
ALJ Semcer: That's my understanding. So I don't, there's no additional party status that's required to be part of the order to show cause.
Ben Ellis: Great. Okay, thank you so much.
ALJ Semcer: And then I have a request for Kern County.
Megan Smoggy: Thank you, Your Honor. Megan. Smoggy for Kern
county. Kern County is in the service territory of both PG&E and Southern California
Edison. Kern County was deenergized multiple times during the October PSPS events that
are the subject of this order to show cause. The county also wants to participate,
going forward in the larger rulemaking to improve both PG&E's and Edison's practices
as well as to refine the Commission's requirements.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Party status is granted. Those
are the only motions that I have. Are there any other motions for party status today?
Please come forward to the mic. Thank you.
Tahia Saltan: Yes, Your Honor. My name is Tahia Saltan,
and I'm here on behalf of the ad hoc committee. We've submitted a motion for party status
in this proceeding.
ALJ Semcer: Yes, thank you. I was going to get to that. I planned to be ruling
on that motion very shortly. I'm not going to rule on it today. I plan to be issuing
a written ruling in the near future.
Tahia Saltan: Great. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: One point of clarification is that if you are a party to the, what was the quasi-legislative portion of this proceeding, previously Phase one and now Phase two. You are still a party and also considered a party to the order to show cause. There is no separate service list that will be constructed. We will move forward with one service list for both portions of the preceding. Okay, what I'd like to do now is just take a moment, and orient us all. We've had several proceedings that have been opened and changes that have happened in proceedings in the last bit. And so I want to take a moment to explain how those proceedings will interact and how we will move forward. So we had Rulemaking 1812005, which, as I mentioned, was the quasilegislative portion of addressing or developing guidelines for the utilities public safety power shut off programs. We initially referred to that as the deenergization. We are moving forward, given that's the common terminology being used, to use public safety power shut off. Then the Commission, or we, I'm sorry, we issued a ruling. President Batjer and I issued the ruling in this proceeding of the order to show cause, which is the subject that we're here today. That applies solely to Pacific Gas and Electric Company and to the events that occurred in October of this year, the public safety power shut off events that occurred in October of this year. On November 13, the Commission adopted an order instituting investigation. Its Investigation 1911013. That investigation is open to determine whether California's investor owned utilities prioritize safety and complied with the Commission's regulations and requirements with respect to their public safety power shut off events in late 2019. That order instituting investigation applies to all of the electric investor owned utilities under the Commission's jurisdiction and looks at events that happened throughout the wildfire season in 2019. The process in that proceeding, there has not been a pre hearing conference as of yet, but the process in that proceeding is to first have the Commission's Safety and Enforcement division investigate and produce a consultant's report that evaluates the utilities actions prior to, during, and after the PS PS events in late 2019, and utility compliance with the Commission's existing deenergyization regulations and requirements. We are aware that there is a similar scope in place regarding the investigation and regarding the order to show cause with Pacific Gas and Electric Company. And we will talk PG&E served, and I believe it was served to everyone, if not, please let me know. But served last night or late yesterday afternoon, in their response about a schedule for this proceeding, they did request in abeyance, and we will talk about that, to address the possibilities of overlap that are happening in these proceedings. We will take some time to discuss that later. But what I'd like to do today is move forward as if both proceedings are operating under the schedules that are happening today. And then we'll take that under advisement. That being said, I want to confirm the categorization of the scope of the order to show cause. As I mentioned, the overarching order instituting rulemaking is categorized as quasi-legislative. And there are no restrictions or reporting requirements as to ex parte communications. The ex parte rules for the order to show cause days are different. ALJ Poryay issued a ruling on November 26 noting that the categorization of this portion, the order to show cause, is adjudicatory and therefore ex parte communications pertaining to the order to show cause are prohibited. Given that we have similar topics being discussed in both the order to show cause and the investigation, the OII, that was also opened, we anticipate issuing further guidance in a ruling upcoming to discuss the somewhat conflicting ex parte requirements. In terms of the investigation is rate setting. And so there are ex parte communications are allowed, but they're allowed with, under the rules, Article eight rules, whereas they are prohibited in the order to show cause. So we will be providing further guidance to parties shortly on how to navigate the topics being similar in the two proceedings. Okay, I'd like to move forward with an overview of the scope. You all read the order to show cause. But just so we have it on the record, the order to show cause directed Pacific Gas and Electric Company to show cause why it should not be sanctioned by the Commission for Violation of Public Utilities Code, Section 451, Commission Decision 1905042, and Resolution ESRB 8, by failing to properly communicate with its customers, coordinate with local governments and communicate with critical facilities and public safety partners as defined during the public safety power shut off events during October 9th through 12th, 2019, and October 23rd through November 1st, 2019. Pursue to Public Utilities Code Section 2107 and 2108, the Commission may impose penalties for each offense if found to be supported by the evidence of not less than $500 nor more than $100,000 for each offense. I'm going to move forward next
ALJ Semcer: into a discussion of the evidence that we have currently before us in this order to show cause. I want to note that this order to show cause is a little different than how we normally move forward with orders to show causes in the Commission. Usually we would have the Commission mainly interacting with the party that's being, that hasn an allegation against some, and for the most part, the evidence will be brought forward by that party or would be admitted as a result of a investigation from the utility, the Public Utilities Commission Safety and Enforcement Division. And there often is not testimony admitted by other parties. This is different in how we're planning to move forward. And so because of that, I do want to give parties an opportunity, after I read out the evidence that we have before us, for suggestions of other evidence that the Commission should consider in this order to show cause. So the order to show cause as written includes the following evidence. President Batjer's October 14, 2019, Letter to Pacific Gas and Electric and PG&E's weekly responses, which has noted in the ruling, PG&E's weekly responses in order to avoid ex parte communications, are now being formally filed in the record of this proceeding. The second piece of evidence is the transcript of the Commission's October 18th 2019 emergency meeting and PG&E's presentation, and finally, PG&E's ESRB Eight reports regarding the PSPS events for October 2019 and any stakeholder responses. I want to clarify that in the OSC, we're calling these reports out of ESRB 8 reports. The reports contain elements that are mandated in ESRB Eight. They also contain elements that are mandated in decision 1905042. So they are just the post PS PS reports that have been, being served on the service list of this proceeding. I will start with with PG&E and ask if there's any additional evidence that you believe the Commission should consider in this proceeding.
Brian Helk: Thank you, Your Honor. Brian Helk for PG&E. I believe there probably will be additional evidence that would be relevant. And in particular, as we're absorbing the stakeholder responses, there may be additional context that we think will inform the Commission's assessment of of those issues.
ALJ Semcer: Okay. And when you say absorbing stakeholder responses, do you mean that after
reviewing the responses that the stakeholders give, that PG&E might wish
to give additional testimony?
Brian Helk: Exactly.
ALJ Semcer: Okay. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: Any party that wishes to offer
ALJ Semcer: what the Commission should consider for evidence is welcome to do so. Miss Kaznitz, I'll call
on you first. If you're coming from the audience, please go ahead and line up and you're welcome
to form a queue there so we can just move forward. Miss Kaznitz.
Melissa Kaznitz: Melissa Kaznitz, Center for Accessible Technology. Several options I'd liketo request to be included into the record. First, while President Batjer's letter to PG&E and PG&E's responses are already on the list. Numerous other parties, including my organization, provided written input in the context of that hearing. The Center for Accessible Technology sent a letter to President Batjer on October 16th. I know other parties submitted letters as well. I believe that any of those sorts of written responses should also be included in the record. Also, to the extent that both my organization and numerous other parties have indicated that our responses to PG&E's 10 day reports are preliminary and that we would be following up with additional information based on our ongoing efforts to gain information about what happened during the power shut offs, I would like to request an opportunity, whether it's as testimony or in some other form, to update the information that we've provided in our response to those 10 day reports. And finally, because of the importance of the facts on the ground and what happened to real people during these power shut offs, I would like to propose, and I believe that there's a broad support among parties, the opportunity for public participation hearings so that input from the public, whether you call it evidence or whether it's simply information that's in the record. I know there's questions about whether public participation hearings are formally evidence, but they're certainly information that should be before the Commission in evaluating exactly what happened and the effects that it had on people whose power was shut off often for extensive periods of time. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. I'm gonna go to the podium first and then I'll come back.
Please state your name for the record.
David Cheng: Sure. My name is David Cheng. CHENG. I'm with TURN. First, I have a remark about the scope of the issues that you're, you laid out earlier. We believe that PG&E's violation of the three items we talked about, the public utilities code, the decision, and the ESRB 8 extend beyond just the three things that's been outlined in order to show cause. So their violation of these three items extend beyond just communication and coordination. For example, decision 1905042 required PG&E to explain how it determined that the benefit of deenergization outweighed potential public safety risks. And we believe that PG&E did not, did not demonstrate that and we have doubts whether they even determined that. And so we strongly urge the order to show cause to the scope to cover beyond just the coordination and communication issues. Second, with regards to other evidence, we have received numerous, having feedback from the community, and we continue to receive feedback from community regarding the effects of the PSPS had on their life. So we believe that those people from the community should be and needs to be part of the record here. So at TURN, and I'm sure the organization's intends to include that in their testimony. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Just before you walk away. To make sure I understand you correctly in regards
to your first item. You're proposing that it just violations of the guidelines included
in a decision 1905042. And to leave it that broad? So those specific subset of those guidelines.
David Cheng: Right. Not limited to the three or two items that you read off.
ALJ Semcer: Okay.
Thank you.
David Peffer: Thank you. Thank you, your honor. David Peffer for the California Community
Choice Association. We strongly support the opportunity to provide testimony. We also
strongly support public participation hearings and ask that the Commission also accept written
impact statements from communities, businesses and individuals. And we suggest that for the
public participation hearings, at least one hearing be held in every impacted county.
We also note that there have been a number of letters from the governor, the Commission's
executive director and the safety enforcement division regarding the outages and ask if
those be included in the record. And also asked that the transcripts from legislative
hearings be included in the record and comments filed in the wildfire mitigation plans since
October 9th.
ALJ Semcer: Can you explain the last one? Why those comments?
David Peffer: To the extent that they may relate to the adequacy of existing wildfire mitigation plans and
PG&E's execution of those plans. Those comments are relevant.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, Thank you.
Megan Smoggy: Thank you, your honor. Megan Smoggy for the joint local governments. We are currently
comprised of the counties of Kern, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,
Sonoma and the city of Santa Rosa. We strongly support the additional evidentiary recommendations
that my colleagues have already made. And I believe that TURN's point about the inadequacy
of PG&E's after action reports is well taken and is something that the Commission
should consider than crafting the final scope of this order to show cause. Additionally,
the joint local governments recommend that parties be given the opportunity to respond
in writing to PG&E's weekly progress reports. We are very pleased that those progress reports
are officially part of the record of this proceeding, but they contain numerous
selective representations of effect, and I have some illustrative examples if that would
help the Commission, at this point. But it is critical if we are to improve PG&E
deenergization practices. If we are to fully understand what happened in October
that the full picture of PG&E's programs, its efforts. It's improvements, whether actual
or theoretical, be put in front of the Commission.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, Thank you. We won't take examples
today, but could another route for that be through the filing of testimony?
Megan Smoggy: Yes. I think testimony could address a number of those shortcomings. I know we haven't got into the question of the advance or the exact pace at which this proceeding is going to unfold. If the shortcomings in PG&E's progress reports are to be addressed in testimony, we would ask that in order to ensure that the utility and the parties and the Commission are in the best position to have a better PSPS program by next fire season, that the schedule of the order to show cause and the associated testimony get going certainly in the first quarter of 2020, and be on an accelerated schedule.
ALJ Semcer: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Abrams I'll
turn to you, and then Mr Bira while we were on a look over there. So, Mr Abrams,
Will Abrams: Thank you. Will Abrams. So I had a few suggestions in terms of the evidence and then some additional suggestions in terms of the scope of the proceeding. In terms of the evidence just following up on what was stated by TURN and others. I think getting some detail around effects to residents is really, really important. You know, specifically records of school closings. How many schools were out? How long were kids out of school? Assessing the damage that was done there myself? I had went through five PSPS events. My kids were out of school for well over a week without the prospect of making up those days. So I think sizing that is going to be very important when it comes to the penalty assessment associated with this. Business loss reports. So I have a number of different folks who are coming to me, demonstrating how many, how much loss there was. Not just the folks who had businesses who lost money that were in the zone of the power shut off, but this dramatically affected businesses that weren't, didn't have power shut off, because residents had to leave the area and were evacuated because of the shut offs. And so effects to those businesses need to be calculated as well. And as has been stated, the costs associated with municipalities and in terms of the first responders and all the slack that had to be pick up, picked up because of those shutdowns. I think it's important to size this in a way that resonates with citizens. So one of the things that I reflected on when I was looking at this is what would this equate to an individual? So if we thought about this in terms of reckless driving incident where a resident got into a reckless driving and got a ticket for reckless driving, that, and equating that to an average salary of $70,000 for a citizen in California, looking at that so that we can justify this in terms of the penalty that's provided would be about 1.3 billion for PG&E, given their annual revenue of about $17 billion. So I think we should make sure that we're sizing the penalty based upon the offenses. In that way.
ALJ Semcer: I'm going to stop you on that front because we will have, all parties will have an opportunity
to make their arguments about the penalty in the proceedings, so I don't want to actually
argue the proceeding right now. I do, if you have additional comments on the scope or the
evidence, that should be considered
Will Abrams: Apologize for that. Thank you. Another part of the proceeding
is understanding how PG&E calculated this as a last resort. So part of what I think
we need to understand is because they didn't mitigate all of these other risks, were about
1\/3 of the way through the vegetation management and other mitigation, how that was calculated
in and factored in in terms of deciding that this was indeed a last resort and making sure
that that's part of the proceeding as well. But I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you,
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Turn it over to CalAdvocates.
Noel: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is Noel Obira.
I will be representing the public advocate's office in this phase of the proceedings. The
OSC. In listening to, in response to your invitation to address this issue,
you're gonna mention testimony. I think it's important to talk a little bit about that
because parties have suggested that there is comments in different proceedings be used
as evidence in this. We, the Commission is considering imposing penalty on the utility,
that makes this particular proceeding much more vulnerable to post-hearing remedies
by that utility. So there's a thing where we say argument of counsel is not evidence.
So if the comments are mostly written by by counsel. It is makes it vulnerable to post hearing
attacks and rehearings and stuff like that. So the testimony may be the best way
for parties to synthesize the comments and bring it into this proceeding. I'm not proposing
one or the other. I'm just putting that out there for the record. Your honor also mention that
this OSC is proceeding the different manner than we usually do in OSCs before the
Commission and what we usually do, what the Commission usually does is give the utility
a chance because the information being used to support the OSC might have confidential
information, and the utility now get the chance to ensure that what becomes public is not
confidential. In this respect, we don't have that input from the utility. I think it's
important to sort of get a lot of information from the utility itself in terms of the decision
making that went into this, the processes, and including even the complaints that they received
Not just the complaints that parties received to make it part of the evidence in this proceeding
and giving the, given the need to make the process expedient, it may just be that energy
division should issue in a master, a master information request, including what might
help parties from the utilities' perspective to bring into this proceeding and then between
the utility and energy division, determine what's confidential and what's not confidential in
that respect. With respect to the narrowness, the narrow manner in which the OSC
has been framed, which is appropriate for penalties. I think in light of, partially
in response to TURNs comments, we think it's important to look at the decision making that
went into the notification, the ultimate notifications that went out because I think thatis
within the scope of what has been narrowly presented. But I think it's important because
the decision to inform some geographic areas as to appropriately, or to notify certain
geographic areas appropriately, may be informed by the the propensity of those geographic areas
to come back and sue PG&E. So it may be that disadvantaged communities may not necessarily
be in a position to come back at us, so a notification may not necessarily be stricter with them.
So I think it's important that we, that the geographic scope and the decision that went
into that be made part, clearly made part of this proceeding, and that information be obtained
through the master ????? list if Commission where to go that route. And, I believe,
if I may, just, just one more thing I would like my analysts to add because I'm coming into
this proceeding for the OSC. But I've been in it in the rulemaking if it's possible.
Lucy Morgan: Yes, I am Lucy Morgan.
ALJ Semcer: I can't hear you from the microphone.
Lucy Morgan: I said, Hi, I'm Lucy Morgan
from the public advocate's office. Can you hear me? In terms of the scope of
the OSC, I just wanted to add that, I wanted to confirm that the decision making
process that determined both size and the duration of the shut off events will be included within
the OSC. As the OSC ruling state, the October 9th through 12th shut off extends across 35 counties, which
impacted 729,000 customer accounts with an average duration of 45 hours. The historic
scale and duration of the shut off event undoubtedly exasperated the widespread communication failures
experienced by customers, local governments, critical facilities and public safety partners.
It should therefore be included in the scope of this OSC.
ALJ Semcer: Okay. Thank you. Miss Conklin, move onto you.
Diane Conklin: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is Diane Conklin. I'm the spokesperson for the Musty Grade Road Alliance in San Diego County. For those who are not familiar with the Alliance, the Alliance is a Grassroots citizens based organization in Ramona, California, and I founded the alliance in 1999, and we've been coming to the Commission representing the Alliance and intervening since 2006. Specifically and precisely on the issue of wildfire, wildfires ignited by utilities' equipment. Therefore, this OSC is very important to us and we are here today from San Diego to let you know a few things. And one of them is that we have questions regarding the failure of PG&E's website. We believe the Commission should closely examine the decisions made regarding the design, development, and operation of PG&E's website. Specifically, it should closely probe whether the availability and scalability failure associated with the October 9th shutoff was due to improper planning at the corporate level, and whether or whether PG&E's IT team was given inadequate design specifications or whether PG&E's website was incorrectly designed or constructed to cope with foreseeable load peaks. Knowing the answer to this question may further illuminate PG&E's corporate safety culture, and therefore have some bearing on its culpability. The Alliance intends to collaborate with interveners and developing a factual basis for the Commission to make this determination. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, Thank you. So to make sure that I'm hearing
you correctly, you're recommending that this scope essentially be expanded to include an
evaluation of their website capabilities during the events.
Diane Conklin: Absolutely. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: I don't see anyone else at the podium. Is there? Are there any other comments about the scope or
the evidence that the Commissioner should consider? Okay, hearing none. I was gonna move
on to a discussion of disputed issues of fact and hearing. I think it's fairly clear that
there are going to be disputed issues of fact. So I don't know that we need to
have a conversation on that. If you If you disagree with what I'm saying, please come
to the podium or raise your hand and let me know. But I think we can safely say that there
are at this point disputed issues of fact and therefore we're likely going to be looking
at needing evidentiary hearings in the order to show cause. Is there any party that
ALJ Semcer: disagrees with this view of it? Okay, seeing none, we will be considering a schedule that includes
ALJ Semcer: evidentiary hearings. Okay, what I'd like to do is move on to a discussion of schedule
and that is naturally going to include the information that PG&E sent out
last night. I issued, it wasn't exactly a ruling, but an email just requesting PG&E
to submit to parties in advance of this hearing today, this pre hearing conference
today, a proposed schedule for the order to show cause. And PG&E submitted to
the service list, last night, essentially what is, amounts to a request. I will say at
this point, it's not a formal motion. I'm gonna ask PG&E in a moment whether that's
a formal motion PG&E wishes to make. But a request to hold the order to show cause
in abeyance pending the completion of phase one of the order instituting investigation,
ALJ Semcer: I'd like. Okay, so I got a little, the phone was ringing there and I got a little distracted.
I'd like to hand this over to PG&E just to request whether that's what, if you'd
like to make it a formal motion and to explain, summarize, if you would, your rationale for
for everyone
PG&E: And your honor, it may make sense to structured his emotion that we proposed
to the schedule. They think it could work either way.
ALJ Semcer: Right now, it's not in the formal
record. That's why I'm asking because it was just sent to the service lift so that
PG&E: I will
make it a motion in that sense. And our thinking is very practical. We don't want to take anything
off the table. We believe there're important purposes to both proceedings. In particular,
we agree with so much of what has been said today about the importance of finding ways
to make all of this process better. Make it work better for the communities and the citizens.
Our thinking is, has a number of points here. One is the simple point that we know that
the other proceeding is going to cover the identical events, will cover the same issues
relating to communication and coordination, look at the same authorities and will assess
our compliance as well as other utilities compliance with those regulations and would
result in a report with, we expect some specificity about where the particular problems are that,
everyone should be focused on addressing. But at a basic level, there's some just resource
allocation questions that we should all be considering in terms of duplication of efforts
and doing things as efficiently as we can. In addition, though, I think there's some
consistency points that we should keep in mind if we have the two proceedings going on separate
tracks. Yeah, it's possible that some of these, different consultants in a different
process could result in ultimately different ultimate decisions. But even short of that,
I think differences in tone and phrasing and emphasis could create just important questions
about where violations are, what needs to be improved, what's the significance of different
facts. Holding this proceeding in abeyance while this, we get this report from the phase one
consultant in the OII, we'll begin with a specific set of facts that we can all start
from and then hopefully lead to a consistent result across those proceedings. We also think
in terms of promoting everyone's ultimate goal here in promoting safety, there are real
benefits to allowing the Phase One consultant to do its work before we reach the final
decision inn this proceeding. That Phase one process as we understand it is going to have
this expert analyze our compliance, our performance as well as others. It will be an expert analysis.
It will, we hope, involve a robust dialogue of you know PG&E, other utilities, the Commission,
all of these stakeholders, all the affected governments and communities and which we can
really focus on how do we make this better. When we get to the point of corrective actions
in this proceeding, it could be a hugely beneficial to know what those findings are and what's
the result of that process with all of that input, not just focused on the individual events
that we dealt with, but all of the expertise that would be coming together through that
Phase One process, and the OII> So if we can hold this in abeyance while we
get that report and then pick things up from there, we think we can lead to a more consistent,
a better, safer process that will get the results that we all should focus on.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. What I'd like to do is hear from parties about this motion, and we're not, I'm not
going to rule on it today, but to hear any comments in support or against that motion,
ALJ Semcer: and then I would like to evaluate the schedule that PG&E put forward. The schedule
ALJ Semcer: is rough, in the sense that it just includes number of days and doesn't have a particular
timing with it. And I imagine that's because of the motion. But I would like to have
a conversation about the elements of PG&E's schedule and if those are the correct elements
as far as the process to get us to completion, and then, the timing, if we do not move
forward with the abeyance , what that would look like. So where I'll start is in response
to PG&E's motion, if any parties have a response, oh, sorry. I did not
see your hand yet.
Noel: I'm sorry. I was just going to ask for clarification, not so much as a response
because this is an OSC where PG&E informing the public Commission, explaining to the Commission
why it didn't conduct itself in a certain manner. The Consultant's report. I'm thinking
of the consultant report as something that would impeach the consultant, not actually
impeach the entity, that it's being called, invited to respond. So I'm trying to understand
from PG&E that clarification in terms of if the consultant comes up with a report that
PG&E does not agree with, can we go forward on the consultant's report for purposes of
imposing a penalty against an entity that does not agree with it and did not prepare the report? That clarification
Secondly, they proposed, the suggestion I made early in terms off having the master evidence
evidentiary list request between the energy division and independent party and PG&E collect the information
that might inform this proposed proceeding. Does that help in respect of what PG&E's
thinking? That's just clarification that I wanted.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, so you're requesting a response from PG&E.
Yes, go ahead.
PG&E: And we appreciate the question. I think what we would envision is the consultant
prepare the report. We may have some disagreements with it. Others may have some disagreements
with it as well, and so at that point we can pick it up, but at least there's something
for everyone to respond to, and there some specificity and what we should be focusing on.
ALJ Semcer: Does that answer your question?
Noel: Yes, Just briefly. For the record, I'm not, we're still
reviewing the schedule, and we're not taking a position on it now. What I'm trying
to understand. Would it help for PG&E to make a submission in response to the
OSC protocol before we go abeyance. Would it? Because at least it would inform what
PG&E disagrees with or agrees with in terms of scope, in terms of direction. And then
at that point, without other parties either commenting or otherwise, we then go in abeyance.
And pursue the schedule that you requested.
PG&E: I hear the thought. It's an interesting idea. I
guess my first reaction would be if we, that, let's see how the consultant finds it most
efficient to gather information. I assume they'll be asking information from us, from
others. Other utilities and as well from other stakeholders as part of this dialogue that
we hope can happen in that proceeding. Go from there
ALJ Semcer: Okay, I'm gonna give others
an opportunity. Mr. Peffer?
David Peffer: Thank you, your honor. CalCCA opposes PG&E's motion. We view it is essential that this be handled in as quickly as possible, as efficiently as possible, and the public receive the signal that the Commission is serious about holding PG&E accountable for the failures that occurred during the October events. In addition, while PG&E justifies its request on the basis of the argument that the consultant, they need to wait for the consultant's report in order to develop a reasonable record for the order to show cause. I would reverse that and say that that record developed in the order to show cause can be used to augment the consultant's report and provide more information for the consultants. And I'm thinking specifically the statements from the public that come out in public participation hearings and also testimony presented by parties. So I think that there is an interplay between the two, but it doesn't necessarily interfere with the Commission's overall efforts, and it may even be more efficient to proceed quickly with order to show cause.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Yes?
Megan Smoggy: Thank you, Your Honor. Megan Smoggy for the joint local governments. We absolutely agree with CalCCA that the better way to avoid duplication of effort is to proceed with the order to show cause and to allow that record to inform the larger consultant's report, which will encompass the actions of the three major investor owned utilities. I imagine that that report will take a number of months to compile. It will be conducted on a slower pace, a broader scope. And while I know that the process in the OII is not currently developed, if there is even a chance that there will not be testimony from the affected parties in the OII, that alone is a reason to preserve the order to show cause to allow it to go first in the order and to allow that record based on the first hand feedback from the impacted communities, the impacted emergency managers. Everyone who has borne the brunt of PG&E's poorly functioning PSPS program to actually provide the information the Commission is looking for to evaluate what went wrong in October and to make those changes going forward to look at what the appropriate penalties are going forward.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. I'm gonna
move to the podium and I'll come back.
David Cheng: Thank you, your honor. David Chang with TURN. TURN opposes PG&Es motion. TURN seems to be, PG&E seems to be suggesting that the order to show cause can use the consultant's report as the fact and start from there, as findings of fact and start from there. I think that's very problematic because while we have no doubt that the expert retained will be from reputable firm with expertise, there's unlikely that expert will be able to provide as much information as all the parties here in terms of the effect that PG&E's actions have had on the community. And so, you know, basing the facts and effects of the community on one consultant report in our opinion would be very limited and inadequate. So we believe that we should definitely move forward with the order to show cause, and allow parties to present evidence that shows the Commission what PG&E's violations and actions had, the effect it had on the community. Thank you.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Miss Kaznitz?
Melissa Kaznitz: Melissa Castnet, Center for Accessible Technology. I generally agree with the points that my colleagues have been making, and I also would like to put forward the notion that the OSC, looking at admissions, that PG&E has made in information that's readily available. It is indicating on its face that there's an understanding that PG&E did not comply with the requirements before it and is asking PG&E to respond to that allegation. And so to step back to the OII Standard, which is an outside consultant, should investigate whether or not there was activity taken by any of the IOUs that didn't meet the standards in the Commission rules and regulations, I think is not something that what would give the public confidence. I think that there's a very widespread understanding that PG&E's implementation of its power shut offs was deeply problematic. And to go back and first start asking the question of were there any problems? Is something that would not be seen as a way to do better going forward. I think that we've passed the point of asking whether PG&E met its obligations in October, and the OSC begins with the understanding that they did not, while giving the due process opportunity for the utility to respond. The OII begins much further back, and I don't think we want to be moving backwards.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. I'm gonna go to the podium for Mr Abrams and
then I'll move over.
Will Abrams: Thank you. Your Honor. In addition to, so I also oppose PG&E's motion, but agree with some of the sentiment in terms of some of the disjointed between the proceedings. My concern is with the last round of the proceeding, we were in a very rushed position to be having a decision prior to wildfire season. And I'm concerned that with a lot of backward looking proceedings that were not looking forward to the next wildfire season, so I would suggest that we look forward and I would also suggest that we may want to consider melding some of the things, even though I know they were purposely brought broken apart for the first round. But 1810007, the wildfire mitigation proceeding. So many of the things that we're addressing associated with the power safety power shut offs, public safety power shut offs, PSPS, and so much of that is related to the wildfire mitigation plans in terms of justifying whether it's a last resort, in terms of understanding where this sits amongst the other wildfire mitigation. And I think we may have a very good approach to PSPS. But that may lead to not as an effective wildfire mitigation plan. So I think we need to consider how those things come together. Are they in the same proceeding? Obviously, there's pros and cons to each of those things, but I think it needs to be thoughtfully worked through.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, thank you. And Miss Conklin?
Diane Conklin: Yes. I wanted to say, Diane Conklin, Musgrave Road Alliance, that the Alliance supports the order to show cause. And precisely because we live on the wildlands urban interface in San Diego and we understand how people are affected when they have a lack of information regarding fires that are come, fast approaching them. That can happen. And when it does happen, it causes tremendous stress and problems for the people on the ground. So I think the Commission is wise to have taken this up now because people out there in the PG&E service territory need to know that this Commission is acting on their benefit because of the fact that they felt let down during the time that these fires occurred. So that is what I have to say about the order show cause. I, too, am sympathetic to different decisions coming out differently with different findings, et cetera, and understand PG&E's point of view. But I also understand what it's like to be on the ground and have something massively failed. Now, I'd like to bring up one other issue, and this may not be when, the time you'd like to hear it, but we also we also have another suggestion. So I'm going to proceed. Please stop me if you think it is not appropriate.
ALJ Semcer: A suggestion as to what?
Diane Conklin: Well, that, I'm gonna tell you, we are very concerned that the shut off proceeding has been stayed while the the order to show cause proceeds. Let me tell you why. We were involved in the original shut off discussions way back in 2009.
ALJ Semcer: I'm gonna interrupt you.
Just clarify. You mean the quasi legislative portion?
Diane Conklin: Yes. I'm talking about track one
and track two. Yeah. Okay. Sorry.
ALJ Semcer: So you're talking about track one, track two, or phase
one and phase two with the multiple tracks, that phase two was held in abeyance while
the order to show cause was
Diane Conklin: Exactly, your honor. So the reason I'm bringing in that up now is because we were involved in shut off years and years ago, 10 years ago. It takes so much time to deal with these kinds of issues. And unfortunately, when we were involved in the first proceeding about shut off that I believe came to the Commission at that time.
ALJ Semcer: I'm gonna interrupt you because we're limited on time, so I just want to get to what?
Diane Conklin: What I'm trying to say is that the Commission made a decision to have studies done, cost benefit analyses, to say when shut offs should occur. Those analyses take time, and this has never been carried out because what happened was the utility said they needed to be able to do emergency shut offs, and we were in favor of that. So what I would request and make a motion for is that the Commission allow a dual track that is to have the order to show cause and to have the shut off proceeding. Go forward in finishing track one and starting track two, so that we have time prior to the upcoming fire season to have this done.
ALJ Semcer: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to move on to the schedule, but I will provide clarification, that it is not the intention to completely hold Phase Two and abeyance while the order to show cause proceeds and then to start again with Phase Two. It was held in abeyance in order to consider the events that just happened. And to consider the Commission's direction in those events that just happened. It is the intention to release an amended scoping memo, as was issued, was stated in the ruling that I put out. So they're not, it's not gonna be held the entire time while the OSC proceed.
Diane Conklin: I thank you very much, Your Honor, for that clarification.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, you're welcome. Given that we digressed a bit, but I heard from several parties in opposition, generally in opposition, one moment, in opposition to PG&E's motion. I will get PG&E an opportunity right now to respond, and then I want to move on to a discussion of schedule.
Noel: Your honor, the public advocate's office has not spoken.
ALJ Semcer: Oh, I'm sorry. Please, go ahead.
Noel: The public advocate's office
have prepared this ????? on on the presumption. If we could come up and
ALJ Semcer: Is this about the motion or
about the schedule?
Noel: About the, about the motion, in response to motion. I was just
going to point out that we prefered this schedule, anticipating that the Commission would like
to resolve the OSC before the next fire season. So, to the extent that Commission wishes to
do that way, have a proposed schedule going forward. Without opposing or agreeing with PG&E's
motion, we think at the very least, that PG&E needs to submit a response to
the OSC. The OSC does not even begin if there is no response to it. If I could
analogoze to a criminal proceeding, before the defendant is guilty or not guilty,
we don't have a proceeding. So at the very least, that step needs to be taken before
the abeyance element goes forward. Because for all we know, they may want to admit
some parts of it. And then the rest, what is not admitted, may be left for the consultant's
report or whatever processes that they're proposing. In that respect. Well, we'll leave
it at that,
ALJ Semcer: Okay. And I can take that schedule in just a moment. But I hear you saying that
you would like PG&E to file a response regardless of whether it's an abeyance, have
a response. And then, if there is an abeyance, there is an abeyance. If there's not
an abyenace, there's not an abeyance. Okay, thank you. I'll give briefly PG&E a moment to respond to everything
you've heard, and then I would like to move on to schedule.
PG&E: Thank you, your Honor. Just a few points first, in terms of the timeline, we understand that the goal of the OII, too, should be to have real recommendations and findings in time for next fire season. So I think holding this in abeyance for that process will still, that's not, we don't envision that being a years long process. We want that to move forward quickly as well. We can have those results in time for next fire season. In terms of public participation. We envision that that OII process and the phase one consultant will be a robust dialogue, and so will allow for that kind of opportunity. And you're under if it doesn't and we come back here, we're happy to have that kind of process at that point. So we don't think this would in any way diminished the opportunity for public participation. Um, a third thing we heard was that no one wants to just rely on the consultant's report as the body of facts. We understand that. We think everyone should have the opportunity to then comment, provide testimony on it and respond to it. And then that can be the opportunity for this to be the response to the order to show cause that the public advocate was suggesting. The benefit of doing it that way is, at that point, we've got some real specificity on what exactly do we think went wrong? And where have we found it? So that then, we're focusing the issues and could deal with them in a more manageable framework.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. I think we've heard enough at this point to have a record on which to base a ruling. Moving on to schedule, PG&E sent to the service list, service list last night a proposed schedule.
Unfortunately, it's only a proposed schedule that includes the OII. The, as I see it, there's, let's go off the record for a moment.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, Back on the record, I wanted to confirm that that I was reading the schedule correctly. There's a schedule proposed that it includes an abeyance of phase 2, excuse me, an abeyance of the OSC in order to allow the phase one of the OII. there's an alternative proposed. However,
that alternative still recommends an engagement of consultants. I think given the number of parties and given the timing that we're under today, what I would like to do is opposed to discussing
specific dates. Um, I think we all understand that if the goal of any of these proceedings is to have a resolution as much as possible in advance of the next wildfire season so that we can move forward with updated guidelines and processes for the next wildfire season, what would be most helpful for me is to understand the process, that the steps we would take in order to resolve this. So what I heard from from the ratepayer advocates is that the first step would be a response. The request is that the first step would be a response from PG&E, and then presumably from there we would move into a testimony phase. This is assuming abeyance. And so I would I would like to do is put the process together regardless of an abeyance, because we will need that process no matter what. So I'm just going to put this out there and then you can respond. Parties can respond. So we would have a response to the order to show cause that's just the recommendation that I've heard, and then we would have testimony. Presumably PG&E testimony first, opening testimony, and then interviewer testimony and rebuttal testimony. And I'm using PG&E's steps in here, then hearings, opening briefs, reply briefs, and the presiding officer's decision. I'd like to hear if parties have any other recommendations as far as the process ia opposed to that. I'll start, yeah, in the middle.
Megan Smoggy: Thank you, Your Honor. Megan Smoggy, for the joint
local governments. My immediate thought is that if we do the three rounds of testimony
PG&E interveners and then rebuttal, that the rebuttal testimony be concurrent, that
all parties should be allowed to rebut. It should not just be the utility.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you,
Miss Kaznitz? And then I'll move over to you, Mr. Pepper.
Melissa Kaznitz: I'd like to add a preliminary
step that we started today's conversation with where, the Commission in a ruling
would create a master list of existing documentation that would already go into the record.
Obviously, beginning with items that were documented in the OSC but amplified as you see fit based
on the recommendations of parties with other material that could be brought in. And all
parties could reference when they were providing their testimony.
David Peffer: Thank you. Yes,
Unknown: Your Honor. CalCCA I would like to request that time prior to testimony blocked off for public participation hearings and that also, to the extent that the Commission does decide that penalties are appropriate, parties be allowed to have a round of comments on both the nature and extent of the penalties, and then also how that penalty money will be used, whether it will be used to compensate victims, et cetera.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Mr Weaver, I had a question
for you regarding this proposed energy division master information request or data request?
Two questions. One is where in the process would you see that happening? I presume it
was after the response, but I want to check with you. And then would you see that as being
issued in a ruling? Where, for parties to provide any input on the data request itself?
Noel: Thank you. I think the place for its to occur would be between, sometime
between parties filed testimony. Ordinarily, if there was time, it would have been essentially
before PG&E even files a response, because that's just trying to mirror what usually
happens in an OSC. This is one reason why we proposed it is that looking at the
OSC and the scope issues that parties are discussing. I don't see how we get to the
penalty phase without substantial information from PG&E and if each party's left to its
own discretion in trying to get and its own activities in trying to get the data
requests and responses. It would delay the whole process. So I was thinking, in terms
of, we already have substantial information from the hearing the Commission held and it's
using information and responses that PG&E said of what they did and didn't do, the Energy
division can craft out a series of requests for SED. I'm sorry. SED to draft out a series of information
request and in a ruling, you could give parties five to 10 days to see provide SCD with all
the aspects of evidence that you think should go into the master evidence document. And
that was essentially to speak himself. But I still, I think that in order to get to
the point where we're able to examine PG&E on what it did or did not do, a lot of that
information would come from PG&E.
ALJ Semcer: Okay. Thank you. There any other? Yes?
David Peffer: Your honor. CalCCA
supports the idea of a master data request but does not believe that should preclude
separate discovery by parties.
ALJ Semcer: Okay, Thank you. Are there any other comments from parties
on the proposed schedule? Yes, or proposed process. I should say
Megan Smoggy: Megan Smoggy, for
the joint local governments. We strongly support Mr Peffers recommendation that parties be
allowed to pursue individual discovery. In addition, to any master request.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you.
Yes?
PG&E: You know, just a few thoughts. One, we think coordinating on discovery would be hugely helpful in making the process more efficient. We support the efforts that people can undertake to do that. Second, I think the most important element to resolve before next wild fire season is to be figuring out what we should be doing. So figuring out that standard is the most urgent thing. And so I think if there's additional time needed for briefing on monetary penalties, I think we can still focus on getting to the safety result by the next wildfire season. If that helps the schedule process. The last thought is there's some talk of both an opening response and opening testimony from PG&E. Think we could combine those if we had sufficient time, right? So it would make the process a little bit longer. But to do those in one shot may be more efficient.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Any other recommendations or suggestions from parties? Yes, Mr Biora?
Noel: Your honor, I mentioned earlier that we had prepared a proposed scheduled in anticipation of what
we will be able to do to be able to get this out before the next fire season. We distributed
it within the hearing room. We have copies for you.
ALJ Semcer: Yes. Please bring it up here. Off the record for a moment.
ALJ Semcer: Back on the record. I'm just gonna read this in since not everyone
has a copy on and then we will take it under consideration. The schedule that was just
proposed is that on January 6th, PG&E files its response to the OSC. On January 31st
2020, parties file comments in response to PG&E's filing on the OSC. Their response.
February 4th, teenth. I'm sorry. February 14th, 2020. Rebuttal filings. Hearings would be
March 3rd through the 5th, briefs on March 26, and reply briefs on April the
sixth. And we'll include that as part of the transcript. I'll give a copy of this to the
hearing reporters.
ALJ Semcer: All right, that concludes. Oh, yes. PG&E, you had something to respond to?
Diane Conklin: Your honor, I have a question. I realize
ALJ Semcer: I just called on PG&E, if you wouldn't
mind, and then I'll go to you. But I called on.
Diane Conklin: I'm so sorry.
PG&E: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.
One thought on the proposed schedule. If we're responding to an opening report of a phase
one consultant or some other document like that, responding along the line of four weeks
or eight weeks or something that may be realistic because we'll have the additional time while the consultant
is working. If we're starting just with a report from us, I think we need more like
90 days
ALJ Semcer: 90 days in order for PGD to respond?
PG&E: No. 90 days in order to prepare. If we're
doing an opening response to the OSC, or opening testimony. I think we need something
like 90 days. If we're reacting to a different document, I think we could do it in a more compressed time.
ALJ Semcer: Okay. Thank you. Miss Conklin.
Diane Conklin: Diane Conklin. I just wanted to ask you, Your Honor,
I didn't quite understand what you said earlier. So could you please clarify what's going to
happen to the shut off Track one and track two proceedings?
ALJ Semcer: Yes. Um, we're moving forward with the order to show cause. We are in consideration now and discussing with one another how to move forward with phase two of the quasi legislative portion of the proceeding. Phase two includes track one and track two, as currently drafted in the, I believe it's in August 14th scoping memo that went out. That's the portion that was held in abeyance while Commission considered its response to the to the recent PS PS events.
The question I was answering for you with
that we're not intending to hold that quasi legislative portion in abeyance until
the order to show cause finishes, we plan to move forward with both of them.
Diane Conklin: Okay, thank you very much. I'm not asking you for a date today, obviously. But what I'd like to say one more time is it's going to take time to get the shut off proceeding to the Commission. Then it's going to take time for the IOUs to respond to the Commission's orders. And in order for this to happen prior to this next fire season, we ask that the Commission, and I did make a motion, that the Commission restart the shut off proceeding and do it as a dual track with the order to show cause.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Yes?
Megan Smoggy: Thank you, Your Honor. Megan Smoggy for the joint local governments. I have a brief consideration that is relevant to Miss Conklin's remarks and the Commission's current consideration about how the deenergization rule making is going to proceed. There is a practical issue that none of the current proceedings address, the order show cause is looking backward, the OII is looking backward, and then it will look forward to new rules. But between now and fire season 2020, some very real work needs to be done to bring all three of the large utilities, actual day to day boots on the ground, deenergization programs into compliance with the Commission's current rules from the Phase one. You know, some of that work is shown in PG&E's Weekly Progress reports, so I know there's a lot of overlap in terms of what issues are being discussed where. But if we don't sort of firm up the baseline in terms of the utilities' operations, particularly PG&E, but Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric have some work to do as well. Then fire Season 2020 is not going to go much better than it did this year. And so we would recommend for the Commission's consideration as it recrafts the rulemaking that perhaps there be some space made in there for looking at the practical improvements.
ALJ Semcer: Thank you. Yes, Mr Peffer>
David Peffer: And CalCCA
supports Miss Smoggy's request.
ALJ Semcer: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other comments on schedule?
I know we just moved off of that a little bit. Hearing none, are there any other topics that need
to be discussed that have not already been discussed today? Particularly relating to
the order to show cause? Okay. Hearing none. That concludes today's pre hearing conference.
Thank you. Off the record.