WEBVTT
00:00:00.110 --> 00:00:01.300
It's time to get started.
00:00:01.300 --> 00:00:02.700
Is the court reporter ready?
00:00:03.770 --> 00:00:04.930
Looks good.
00:00:04.930 --> 00:00:06.420
We will be on the record.
00:00:06.420 --> 00:00:08.020
The Commission will please come to order.
00:00:08.020 --> 00:00:09.630
Good morning, everyone.
00:00:09.630 --> 00:00:11.309
This is the time and the place
00:00:11.309 --> 00:00:13.247
for the pre hearing conference
00:00:13.247 --> 00:00:18.247
for complaint 21-1-014 County of Santa Cruz
00:00:20.420 --> 00:00:23.460
versus Pacific Gas and Electric company.
00:00:23.460 --> 00:00:28.280
The complaint was filed on January 25th, 2021.
00:00:28.280 --> 00:00:31.860
PG&E was granted an extension to file their answer
00:00:31.860 --> 00:00:36.380
and PG&E did so on April 29th, 2021.
00:00:36.380 --> 00:00:40.010
PG&E also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
00:00:40.010 --> 00:00:42.670
on April 29th, 2021.
00:00:42.670 --> 00:00:45.460
And the response from the County of Santa Cruz
00:00:45.460 --> 00:00:49.810
to the motion to dismiss is due no later than tomorrow.
00:00:49.810 --> 00:00:51.810
My name is Patrick Doherty
00:00:51.810 --> 00:00:54.820
and I am one of the assigned Administrative Law Judges
00:00:54.820 --> 00:00:56.320
for this proceeding.
00:00:56.320 --> 00:01:00.140
The other co-signed Administrative Law Judge is Garrett Toy.
00:01:00.140 --> 00:01:01.580
He is with us today
00:01:01.580 --> 00:01:04.080
and the assigned Commissioner is President Batjer.
00:01:05.120 --> 00:01:07.150
The purpose of a pre hearing conference
00:01:07.150 --> 00:01:10.123
is to discuss the scope and schedule of the proceeding.
00:01:11.020 --> 00:01:12.170
As such my agenda
00:01:12.170 --> 00:01:15.140
for today is first to go over the service list
00:01:15.140 --> 00:01:17.098
then discuss the categorization of this proceeding
00:01:17.098 --> 00:01:20.670
followed by the scope of the issues,
00:01:20.670 --> 00:01:22.730
and finally to discuss the schedule
00:01:22.730 --> 00:01:25.160
for the remainder of the proceeding.
00:01:25.160 --> 00:01:28.010
A determination on the aforementioned topics
00:01:28.010 --> 00:01:30.696
will be finalized in a scoping ruling issued
00:01:30.696 --> 00:01:34.050
by the assigned Commissioner's office.
00:01:34.050 --> 00:01:35.210
A reminder for everyone
00:01:35.210 --> 00:01:39.290
including myself to please speak slowly and clearly
00:01:39.290 --> 00:01:41.470
or the benefit of our court reporter
00:01:41.470 --> 00:01:45.070
and not to interrupt or speak over one another.
00:01:45.070 --> 00:01:47.830
If you wish to make a comment or ask a question
00:01:47.830 --> 00:01:50.940
please raise your hand so that I can call on you.
00:01:50.940 --> 00:01:52.610
Are there any initial questions
00:01:52.610 --> 00:01:54.403
or concerns before we move on?
00:01:56.760 --> 00:01:58.000
Okay, hearing none.
00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:00.010
The first order of business is to develop the
00:02:00.010 --> 00:02:02.550
service list pursuant to rule 1.4
00:02:03.760 --> 00:02:06.810
the complainant and the defendant are automatically parties
00:02:06.810 --> 00:02:10.870
to the proceeding or each company or organization.
00:02:10.870 --> 00:02:14.260
There will be one representative listed as the party.
00:02:14.260 --> 00:02:17.143
All others will be listed as information only.
00:02:18.170 --> 00:02:20.430
I will now read the names of the current parties
00:02:20.430 --> 00:02:24.360
to the proceeding County of Santa Cruz and PG&E.
00:02:25.450 --> 00:02:28.930
Is there anyone else with us today wishing to become a party
00:02:28.930 --> 00:02:29.883
to this proceeding?
00:02:32.030 --> 00:02:33.300
Hearing none let's move on
00:02:33.300 --> 00:02:37.930
to categorization pursuant to rule 7.1 B
00:02:37.930 --> 00:02:39.890
this proceeding has been categorized
00:02:39.890 --> 00:02:44.220
as adjudicatory in the instructions to answer filed
00:02:44.220 --> 00:02:48.150
on February 12th, 2021, no appeal
00:02:48.150 --> 00:02:52.300
that categorization was lodged pursuant to rule 7.6
00:02:52.300 --> 00:02:55.433
and therefore the adjudicatory categorizations stands.
00:02:56.400 --> 00:03:00.200
The adjudicatory categorization triggers ex parte
00:03:00.200 --> 00:03:05.200
communication rules described in rule 8.2 B
00:03:05.720 --> 00:03:08.160
as a reminder of the parties that subsection
00:03:08.160 --> 00:03:11.995
of rule 8.2 states that ex parte communications
00:03:11.995 --> 00:03:15.740
and communications concerning procedural matters
00:03:15.740 --> 00:03:19.171
between interested persons and decision-makers other
00:03:19.171 --> 00:03:23.870
than the assigned Administrative Law Judges are prohibited.
00:03:23.870 --> 00:03:25.290
Parties are also reminded
00:03:25.290 --> 00:03:27.330
that the Commission may impose penalties
00:03:27.330 --> 00:03:29.083
for violation of this rule.
00:03:30.140 --> 00:03:31.130
Let's go ahead and move on
00:03:31.130 --> 00:03:35.040
to the issues in the scope of the, of the proceeding based
00:03:35.040 --> 00:03:37.730
on the complaint and the answer to the complaint.
00:03:37.730 --> 00:03:40.340
I have preliminarily determined the scope
00:03:40.340 --> 00:03:42.530
of the proceeding to be as follows.
00:03:42.530 --> 00:03:47.290
Number one, determining the laws, rules, and orders
00:03:47.290 --> 00:03:49.710
for which the Commission is authorized
00:03:49.710 --> 00:03:53.220
to impose remedies upon PG&E.
00:03:53.220 --> 00:03:58.177
If PG&E is determined to have violated those laws or orders.
00:03:59.650 --> 00:04:04.650
Number two, determining if PG&E violated any of the laws
00:04:05.350 --> 00:04:08.006
rules or orders for which the Commission is
00:04:08.006 --> 00:04:11.150
authorized to impose remedies.
00:04:11.150 --> 00:04:13.100
Resolving this issue will require
00:04:13.100 --> 00:04:17.306
making factual findings regarding the PG&E activities
00:04:17.306 --> 00:04:20.090
that are alleged in the complaint.
00:04:20.090 --> 00:04:23.190
And number three, if a violation is determined
00:04:23.190 --> 00:04:24.800
to have occurred,
00:04:24.800 --> 00:04:28.440
what is the appropriate remedy to impose?
00:04:28.440 --> 00:04:31.500
Do parties have any additional issues they wish to propose
00:04:31.500 --> 00:04:34.253
or comments on the preliminary determination?
00:04:38.300 --> 00:04:41.150
Okay, hearing no questions or comments
00:04:41.150 --> 00:04:42.930
I propose to recommend these issues
00:04:42.930 --> 00:04:44.980
to President Batjer for inclusion
00:04:44.980 --> 00:04:49.540
in the scoping memo, because the second issue is necessarily
00:04:49.540 --> 00:04:53.250
one of fact, I believe that evidentiary hearing is required
00:04:53.250 --> 00:04:54.810
in this proceeding.
00:04:54.810 --> 00:04:58.230
I note that the complainant also requested a hearing.
00:04:58.230 --> 00:05:01.083
Do parties have any comment on the need hearing?
00:05:04.476 --> 00:05:05.770
A hearing no comments.
00:05:05.770 --> 00:05:09.090
I will recommend that we include hearings in the schedule
00:05:09.090 --> 00:05:10.890
for this proceeding.
00:05:10.890 --> 00:05:13.750
Now with respect to a schedule, the complainant proposed
00:05:13.750 --> 00:05:17.760
that the hearing take place in March, 2021, we are obviously
00:05:17.760 --> 00:05:20.090
not gonna make that date.
00:05:20.090 --> 00:05:22.620
I do want to ensure that parties are provided
00:05:22.620 --> 00:05:25.847
with adequate time for discovery and that the Commission is
00:05:25.847 --> 00:05:28.870
afforded at least a few weeks to draft
00:05:28.870 --> 00:05:30.633
and file a scoping memo.
00:05:31.550 --> 00:05:34.117
Given those concerns, do parties have a view
00:05:34.117 --> 00:05:37.630
on the best time for evidentiary hearing in this proceeding
00:05:42.840 --> 00:05:44.000
For PG&E,
00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:46.283
This is Laurie Edelstein from Steptoe.
00:05:47.230 --> 00:05:50.420
We are concerned first about the scope of the proceeding
00:05:50.420 --> 00:05:51.420
not in terms of the way
00:05:51.420 --> 00:05:53.100
in which you laid out what the issues are
00:05:53.100 --> 00:05:56.300
but rather we believe there are certain threshold
00:05:56.300 --> 00:05:58.250
questions that to be decided first
00:05:58.250 --> 00:06:00.940
in terms of the laws, rules, and orders
00:06:00.940 --> 00:06:03.240
for which the Commission is authorized to
00:06:03.240 --> 00:06:05.540
adjudicate the issues that have been raised
00:06:05.540 --> 00:06:06.690
by the county of Santa Cruz.
00:06:06.690 --> 00:06:08.470
And it would be helpful for us
00:06:08.470 --> 00:06:11.133
if we first had a determination on those threshold questions
00:06:11.133 --> 00:06:14.230
so that we would understand what the scope
00:06:14.230 --> 00:06:16.183
of any evidentiary proceeding would be.
00:06:18.600 --> 00:06:20.933
Thank you for that, Mr. Zazueta
00:06:20.933 --> 00:06:22.360
do you, do you have a response
00:06:22.360 --> 00:06:24.963
to that from the county of Santa Cruz's position?
00:06:28.070 --> 00:06:32.280
Well, I believe that we do need to reach that threshold.
00:06:32.280 --> 00:06:35.290
The question I'm, I think we're ready to proceed
00:06:35.290 --> 00:06:37.071
to evidentiary hearings, however
00:06:37.071 --> 00:06:42.071
as this is a somewhat unfamiliar territory for us
00:06:42.670 --> 00:06:47.670
we'd invite Your Honor to lay out kind of, I guess
00:06:47.670 --> 00:06:51.240
a path forward for any determinations that need to be made
00:06:51.240 --> 00:06:53.334
as to whether or not there's a determination
00:06:53.334 --> 00:06:55.100
for the laws, rules and orders
00:06:55.100 --> 00:06:59.513
which are CQC is authorized to rule on in this matter.
00:07:01.200 --> 00:07:03.150
Well, I would note for the record
00:07:03.150 --> 00:07:06.070
that the motion to dismiss considers this issue
00:07:06.070 --> 00:07:07.810
among several others.
00:07:07.810 --> 00:07:10.280
And I suppose it's possible that a ruling
00:07:10.280 --> 00:07:13.280
on the motion to dismiss could clarify that the laws
00:07:13.280 --> 00:07:16.510
rules and orders are that can also be achieved
00:07:16.510 --> 00:07:19.930
in the scoping memo with the parties being minimal.
00:07:19.930 --> 00:07:22.670
If the Commission were to, through either
00:07:22.670 --> 00:07:25.490
of those vehicles on what the specific laws, rules
00:07:25.490 --> 00:07:28.290
and orders are they within the scope of this proceeding.
00:07:30.340 --> 00:07:32.242
I believe the county would be comfortable
00:07:32.242 --> 00:07:37.242
after being allowed to file its reply or opposition
00:07:37.760 --> 00:07:41.220
to the motion to dismiss tomorrow as scheduled.
00:07:41.220 --> 00:07:44.560
And then I welcome any comments
00:07:44.560 --> 00:07:46.310
from my colleague, Justin Graham
00:07:46.310 --> 00:07:49.078
but I think that would be appropriate to move forward after
00:07:49.078 --> 00:07:52.823
after a ruling has given on that.
00:07:55.037 --> 00:07:56.624
And we've had to request an opportunity
00:07:56.624 --> 00:07:58.707
to submit a reply as well
00:08:02.172 --> 00:08:03.005
(indistinct)
00:08:03.005 --> 00:08:06.050
We would request an opportunity to submit a reply
00:08:06.050 --> 00:08:07.547
on the motion to dismiss
00:08:08.680 --> 00:08:11.940
Okay, the rules offers you that opportunity Ms. Edelstein.
00:08:11.940 --> 00:08:15.150
So upon receipt of the response from the county
00:08:15.150 --> 00:08:19.970
of Santa Cruz, PG&E can contemplate making such a request
00:08:19.970 --> 00:08:20.940
pursuant to our rules.
00:08:20.940 --> 00:08:23.310
You, you may request the opportunity to apply it
00:08:23.310 --> 00:08:24.643
to the response.
00:08:25.730 --> 00:08:27.660
With respect though, to the question
00:08:27.660 --> 00:08:31.300
of addressing which laws, rules, and orders are
00:08:31.300 --> 00:08:33.568
within the scope of the subtlety.
00:08:33.568 --> 00:08:35.142
I can, I presume that PG&E is comfortable if
00:08:35.142 --> 00:08:37.290
either the scoping memo and ruling
00:08:37.290 --> 00:08:41.740
or the ruling on the motion considers that particular issue?
00:08:41.740 --> 00:08:42.597
Yes we are.
00:08:43.940 --> 00:08:45.823
I think that makes sense.
00:08:46.790 --> 00:08:47.623
We should certainly do.
00:08:47.623 --> 00:08:49.249
So given that the parties believe it's necessary
00:08:49.249 --> 00:08:51.320
to prepare for hearing.
00:08:51.320 --> 00:08:54.399
So we will aim to do so assuming that
00:08:54.399 --> 00:08:56.560
because I don't wanna say anything
00:08:56.560 --> 00:08:58.050
on the record that would be prejudicial
00:08:58.050 --> 00:09:00.170
to the outcome of that determination.
00:09:00.170 --> 00:09:02.260
If we assume that all of the laws
00:09:02.260 --> 00:09:06.130
rules and orders alleged by the County of Santa Cruz
00:09:06.130 --> 00:09:08.790
are to be considered in this proceeding.
00:09:08.790 --> 00:09:11.663
And therefore we need to prepare for hearing on those.
00:09:12.640 --> 00:09:14.450
What do parties feel like the best time
00:09:14.450 --> 00:09:17.000
for hearing would be in this proceeding?
00:09:21.370 --> 00:09:23.360
I think we would need to have a substantial period
00:09:23.360 --> 00:09:24.980
in order to do adequate discovery.
00:09:24.980 --> 00:09:26.270
In this case, there are a number
00:09:26.270 --> 00:09:28.280
of factual questions that have been raised
00:09:28.280 --> 00:09:29.840
by the county's complaint.
00:09:29.840 --> 00:09:33.570
So we think that we need to build
00:09:33.570 --> 00:09:35.597
in sufficient time to do discovery.
00:09:36.809 --> 00:09:37.642
Okay.
00:09:38.490 --> 00:09:39.340
So I-
00:09:39.340 --> 00:09:40.750
Excuse me, Your Honor,
00:09:40.750 --> 00:09:44.490
if I may, we also want to add
00:09:44.490 --> 00:09:46.620
that there may be some spoilage
00:09:46.620 --> 00:09:49.330
of certain evidence in the field.
00:09:49.330 --> 00:09:52.600
So we certainly think that there's going to
00:09:52.600 --> 00:09:55.410
be extensive discovery in this case.
00:09:55.410 --> 00:09:59.047
And, but also to take into consideration
00:09:59.047 --> 00:10:04.047
that just the timing as we enter into a new fire season
00:10:04.450 --> 00:10:08.745
as we have debris that is currently spoiling
00:10:08.745 --> 00:10:11.693
or could spoil in the field, I think it's,
00:10:14.131 --> 00:10:14.964
I guess,
00:10:16.410 --> 00:10:17.560
something that we would want to keep
00:10:17.560 --> 00:10:20.460
in mind as far as a briefing schedule or hearing schedule.
00:10:22.280 --> 00:10:25.960
Okay, so I'm gonna throw some timelines out there
00:10:25.960 --> 00:10:28.300
and see how the parties respond, because
00:10:28.300 --> 00:10:31.760
in the scoping memo, I wanna make sure we can be specific
00:10:31.760 --> 00:10:33.780
so that the parties have expectations
00:10:33.780 --> 00:10:35.490
about when discovery will be completed and when
00:10:35.490 --> 00:10:38.580
they need to prepare direct testimony and then the rebuttal.
00:10:38.580 --> 00:10:41.860
So if discovery extended through the summer
00:10:41.860 --> 00:10:46.520
and were to end by September, would that be sufficient time
00:10:46.520 --> 00:10:49.360
for the parties then to prepare direct testimony
00:10:49.360 --> 00:10:52.483
battle testimony, and then hearing by the end of the year?
00:10:57.865 --> 00:10:58.698
I think to some extent it will depend
00:10:58.698 --> 00:11:00.660
on the number of issues that are in the scope
00:11:00.660 --> 00:11:03.300
of the proceeding, which is why I'm hesitating
00:11:03.300 --> 00:11:06.640
on a green twist as a schedule right now
00:11:06.640 --> 00:11:08.760
because I think the scope will be different depending
00:11:08.760 --> 00:11:11.070
on what issues remain in the proceeding.
00:11:11.070 --> 00:11:11.903
If we had a sense
00:11:11.903 --> 00:11:14.052
of when we could receive the scoping memo that laid
00:11:14.052 --> 00:11:17.410
out the issues that were within scope
00:11:17.410 --> 00:11:21.260
it would be helpful then to be able to assess at that point
00:11:21.260 --> 00:11:23.363
what the procedural schedule would be.
00:11:24.360 --> 00:11:25.503
Is that a possibility?
00:11:26.870 --> 00:11:27.703
It certainly is.
00:11:27.703 --> 00:11:29.990
And I think, again, the premise of my question
00:11:29.990 --> 00:11:32.110
or I'm sorry, the hypothetical that I'm asking
00:11:32.110 --> 00:11:34.387
about is if we assume that all of the laws, rules
00:11:34.387 --> 00:11:37.710
and orders are within scope as alleged by the county
00:11:38.620 --> 00:11:39.750
what would the schedule look like?
00:11:39.750 --> 00:11:43.420
Because then I can, in the event that possibly
00:11:43.420 --> 00:11:45.970
the scope is more restricted, we can work back from that.
00:11:45.970 --> 00:11:47.190
So I'm trying to figure out
00:11:47.190 --> 00:11:49.990
what's the maximum amount of time that the parties need.
00:11:52.490 --> 00:11:54.350
I think we would certainly through the summer
00:11:54.350 --> 00:11:57.783
if not longer through the fall, the factual, as well
00:11:59.160 --> 00:12:02.333
as expert testimony in the case that will be necessary.
00:12:03.240 --> 00:12:05.273
Okay. Mr. Zazueta do you concur?
00:12:06.110 --> 00:12:06.943
Yeah.
00:12:06.943 --> 00:12:09.360
September actually seems like a fair for a date
00:12:09.360 --> 00:12:11.130
through the summer, I think is adequate
00:12:11.130 --> 00:12:12.433
for the county to prepare.
00:12:13.940 --> 00:12:14.900
Okay.
00:12:14.900 --> 00:12:16.610
Thank you for this information.
00:12:16.610 --> 00:12:19.060
I will keep it in mind as we go through drafting
00:12:19.060 --> 00:12:20.179
the scoping memo.
00:12:20.179 --> 00:12:25.179
If I presume then that discovery ends, let's say by the end
00:12:25.430 --> 00:12:27.870
of September, indifference to the number of issues
00:12:27.870 --> 00:12:31.730
that may be in scope, would it be appropriate to
00:12:31.730 --> 00:12:36.730
consider prepared, direct testimony to be served by November
00:12:37.320 --> 00:12:38.840
with rebuttal testimony then do
00:12:38.840 --> 00:12:40.450
before the holidays in December
00:12:46.365 --> 00:12:48.380
Yes, I think that that's possible.
00:12:48.380 --> 00:12:50.410
Yes, the county's a minimal to them.
00:12:50.410 --> 00:12:51.270
Okay.
00:12:51.270 --> 00:12:52.103
Thank you.
00:12:52.103 --> 00:12:53.270
That helps me start to frame
00:12:53.270 --> 00:12:54.730
out the schedule of the proceeding.
00:12:54.730 --> 00:12:55.680
So I appreciate that.
00:12:55.680 --> 00:12:58.970
And in that event, if we stick to that schedule and that
00:12:58.970 --> 00:13:02.573
then we'd be looking at hearing early in the year, 2022.
00:13:03.830 --> 00:13:04.663
Okay.
00:13:04.663 --> 00:13:09.120
That ends my need to discuss the schedule.
00:13:09.120 --> 00:13:11.010
ALJ Toy, do you have any questions
00:13:11.010 --> 00:13:13.693
or concerns that you would like to address at this time?
00:13:15.280 --> 00:13:17.210
Sure. Since we're all here.
00:13:17.210 --> 00:13:18.270
Hi everyone.
00:13:18.270 --> 00:13:19.670
Thanks for being here today.
00:13:20.900 --> 00:13:22.260
I had a couple of questions
00:13:22.260 --> 00:13:27.260
about the outstanding motion to dismiss
00:13:28.230 --> 00:13:29.260
since we're all here.
00:13:29.260 --> 00:13:32.523
And I apologize if the questions, some of us will be covered
00:13:32.523 --> 00:13:35.800
in the County of Santa Cruz's response tomorrow
00:13:36.870 --> 00:13:38.880
but I wanted to make sure I had the party's thoughts
00:13:38.880 --> 00:13:39.913
on a few things.
00:13:41.670 --> 00:13:43.740
So presuming the county argues
00:13:43.740 --> 00:13:46.200
that the Commission does have jurisdiction
00:13:46.200 --> 00:13:47.770
for all the claims laid out
00:13:47.770 --> 00:13:50.610
in the complaint and correct me if that's changed
00:13:50.610 --> 00:13:54.918
but can I get some sense of the county's thoughts
00:13:54.918 --> 00:13:58.510
on why the Commission would be the preferable venue
00:13:58.510 --> 00:14:01.850
I guess, for some of the non public utilities code
00:14:01.850 --> 00:14:03.643
or general order violations?
00:14:06.250 --> 00:14:09.000
Yes. Can I defer to my colleague, Justin Graham?
00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:11.650
I know that I'm being sure something here is, but you know
00:14:11.650 --> 00:14:14.380
we are sharing our defense here.
00:14:14.380 --> 00:14:16.570
Absolutely. Thanks.
00:14:16.570 --> 00:14:17.403
Thank you, Your Honor.
00:14:17.403 --> 00:14:21.920
And I apologize for my audio problems, Your Honor, it may be
00:14:21.920 --> 00:14:23.610
that the Commission is the only venue
00:14:23.610 --> 00:14:26.050
that's appropriate for the kind of relates-
00:14:26.050 --> 00:14:28.860
To be off the record or off the record.
00:14:28.860 --> 00:14:31.410
Mr. Graham, your, your volume is quite low.
00:14:31.410 --> 00:14:32.809
If there's an ability to turn
00:14:32.809 --> 00:14:36.720
up the gain on your incident, that would be appreciated.
00:14:36.720 --> 00:14:38.660
And I need him to start over, please, Your Honor.
00:14:38.660 --> 00:14:40.090
Cause I can barely hear.
00:14:40.090 --> 00:14:41.340
Thank you.
Understood.
00:14:44.890 --> 00:14:46.890
Back on the record, go ahead Mr. Gray.
00:14:54.290 --> 00:14:56.973
Off the record is it better, Your Honor.
00:14:58.120 --> 00:15:00.030
A little bit louder.
00:15:00.030 --> 00:15:01.930
Maybe if you speak a little bit louder
00:15:03.460 --> 00:15:04.710
Better now, Your Honor.
00:15:05.570 --> 00:15:07.279
I think that's a little court reporter.
00:15:07.279 --> 00:15:10.267
Is that good?
00:15:10.267 --> 00:15:11.440
Can you say something again?
00:15:11.440 --> 00:15:12.332
Mr. Graham please?
00:15:12.332 --> 00:15:14.060
Yes. I'm sorry.
00:15:14.060 --> 00:15:15.200
Is this better?
00:15:15.200 --> 00:15:16.053
Yes, thank you.
00:15:16.960 --> 00:15:18.903
Okay. Back on the record.
00:15:20.730 --> 00:15:21.620
Yes, Your Honor.
00:15:21.620 --> 00:15:24.300
It may be that the CPC or
00:15:24.300 --> 00:15:27.770
that the formal complaint process is the only location where
00:15:27.770 --> 00:15:30.128
or only venue where the county's relief is
00:15:30.128 --> 00:15:32.830
can be appropriately determined.
00:15:32.830 --> 00:15:36.760
Your Honor, we have received communications
00:15:36.760 --> 00:15:41.760
from PG&E as recently as January 25th
00:15:42.800 --> 00:15:46.226
where it argues that the sole venue for determination
00:15:46.226 --> 00:15:50.690
of compliance with general order 95, rule 35
00:15:53.268 --> 00:15:58.268
complaints is the formal complaint process before the CQC.
00:15:58.930 --> 00:16:02.670
And while we have alleged other violations of law,
00:16:02.670 --> 00:16:05.470
we the county sees those violations
00:16:05.470 --> 00:16:10.470
of law as essentially all characteristic
00:16:11.160 --> 00:16:16.130
of how PG&E has implemented its activities
00:16:16.130 --> 00:16:18.450
that it claims that are pursuant to general order 95
00:16:18.450 --> 00:16:20.712
they're illustrative rather than necessarily
00:16:20.712 --> 00:16:24.343
something that the Commission itself needs to determine.
00:16:25.670 --> 00:16:29.099
Your Honor, we're also, we have also seen pleadings
00:16:29.099 --> 00:16:34.099
from superior court cases where both the both PG&E
00:16:35.878 --> 00:16:40.780
and and the Commission Amicus briefs
00:16:40.780 --> 00:16:44.390
have argued that complaints having to do
00:16:44.390 --> 00:16:47.860
with vegetation management activities conducted pursuant
00:16:47.860 --> 00:16:50.150
to general order 95
00:16:50.150 --> 00:16:52.060
the sole venue for resulting those complaints
00:16:52.060 --> 00:16:56.670
is a formal complaint proceeding before the CPC.
00:16:56.670 --> 00:16:58.530
And so here we are.
00:16:58.530 --> 00:17:01.390
We think that, you know, as far
00:17:01.390 --> 00:17:04.501
as the violation is alleged to the notice of violation
00:17:04.501 --> 00:17:07.940
the factual elements are much more
00:17:07.940 --> 00:17:10.570
or the factual allegations in those notices
00:17:10.570 --> 00:17:12.990
of violation are much more illustrative
00:17:12.990 --> 00:17:16.310
of the actual problems that we've seen with this program.
00:17:16.310 --> 00:17:18.030
So an answer to your question, this
00:17:18.030 --> 00:17:20.900
this is the sole venue that we think would be
00:17:20.900 --> 00:17:22.750
appropriate to hear these complaints.
00:17:24.170 --> 00:17:28.640
Okay. And I have a series of questions now, PG&E
00:17:28.640 --> 00:17:30.490
get your thoughts at the end of them.
00:17:35.520 --> 00:17:38.160
So can I get some sense
00:17:38.160 --> 00:17:42.940
of the county's thoughts on why it believes it
00:17:42.940 --> 00:17:45.120
should be the proper entity to prosecute some
00:17:45.120 --> 00:17:48.210
of these non public utilities code complaints, as opposed
00:17:48.210 --> 00:17:52.033
to some of the agencies issuing the notices of violation?
00:17:54.670 --> 00:17:55.653
Yes, Your Honor,
00:17:57.810 --> 00:17:59.660
we don't see this as prosecutorial
00:17:59.660 --> 00:18:02.787
as far as those violations.
00:18:02.787 --> 00:18:07.787
As I previously said, you really, perhaps
00:18:09.980 --> 00:18:12.830
the best way to think about this is that coastal,
00:18:15.640 --> 00:18:17.600
coastal Commission and Cal fire all have their
00:18:17.600 --> 00:18:19.853
independent enforcement project processes.
00:18:21.070 --> 00:18:24.830
But those processes are designed to deal
00:18:24.830 --> 00:18:27.380
with remedies are designed to deal
00:18:27.380 --> 00:18:29.146
with violations of the code that are
00:18:29.146 --> 00:18:34.146
of their codes that are designed to prevent harm
00:18:34.820 --> 00:18:36.320
to the citizens of the state
00:18:36.320 --> 00:18:39.483
including citizens of Santa Cruz County.
00:18:41.510 --> 00:18:42.730
We have a concern
00:18:42.730 --> 00:18:47.570
that the activities that PG&E has conducted
00:18:47.570 --> 00:18:50.530
and continues to conduct will continue to be not
00:18:50.530 --> 00:18:53.640
in compliance with those sections.
00:18:53.640 --> 00:18:57.710
And so this really goes to how PG conducts its business
00:18:57.710 --> 00:19:02.670
and how it conducts its its vegetation management practices.
00:19:02.670 --> 00:19:04.990
And we think that they're, you know
00:19:04.990 --> 00:19:07.080
far from determining the
00:19:08.012 --> 00:19:10.430
the validity of the notices of violation
00:19:10.430 --> 00:19:13.050
there should be some input and ruling
00:19:13.050 --> 00:19:18.050
from this Commission as to whether it is reasonable
00:19:18.370 --> 00:19:22.120
for PG&E to conduct these activities in the coastal zone
00:19:22.120 --> 00:19:25.360
without seeking permits from the coastal Commission
00:19:25.360 --> 00:19:28.270
whether it's reasonable to, for PG&E
00:19:28.270 --> 00:19:31.840
to conduct these activities that would normally be subject
00:19:31.840 --> 00:19:33.260
to timber operations permits
00:19:33.260 --> 00:19:37.250
without seeking the proper permitting from, from Cal fire.
00:19:37.250 --> 00:19:41.960
And so really what we were asking the Commission to re weigh
00:19:41.960 --> 00:19:46.030
in on our PG&E business practices
00:19:46.030 --> 00:19:48.123
and its vegetation management practices.
00:19:50.910 --> 00:19:51.973
Okay, thank you.
00:19:53.330 --> 00:19:55.930
And this, the complaint proceeds on all claims
00:19:55.930 --> 00:19:58.190
does the county envision needing the participation
00:19:58.190 --> 00:19:59.453
of these other agencies?
00:20:00.580 --> 00:20:02.740
The county would not object to it.
00:20:02.740 --> 00:20:03.931
It might be constructive
00:20:03.931 --> 00:20:06.710
and it might be beneficial for the Commission
00:20:06.710 --> 00:20:10.011
to if we're the Commission to invite briefing from
00:20:10.011 --> 00:20:14.320
for example, the coastal Commission or, or
00:20:14.320 --> 00:20:17.382
from Cal fire as to what proper compliance
00:20:17.382 --> 00:20:20.626
with their procedures would look like
00:20:20.626 --> 00:20:22.820
and they are subject matter experts.
00:20:22.820 --> 00:20:27.630
And I think that would be, you know, appropriate.
00:20:27.630 --> 00:20:29.320
I don't know that we take a position one way
00:20:29.320 --> 00:20:31.973
or another as to whether it's necessary.
00:20:34.220 --> 00:20:35.850
Okay, thank you.
00:20:35.850 --> 00:20:39.160
PG&E, do you have any comments on any of that
00:20:39.160 --> 00:20:41.010
keeping in mind that we have your answers?
00:20:41.010 --> 00:20:44.207
So we have your thoughts on most of that
00:20:45.340 --> 00:20:48.090
Our papers, both our motion to dismiss in our answer
00:20:48.090 --> 00:20:51.210
layout our positions on these issues.
00:20:51.210 --> 00:20:52.850
It's still not clear to me whether
00:20:52.850 --> 00:20:55.460
the County of Santa Cruz is asking for the Commission to
00:20:55.460 --> 00:20:57.590
enforce the notices of violation or not.
00:20:57.590 --> 00:21:01.260
I think I heard two separate things that Mr. Graham said
00:21:01.260 --> 00:21:02.870
but as we lay out in our papers
00:21:02.870 --> 00:21:05.023
we do not believe the Commission has jurisdiction to
00:21:05.023 --> 00:21:10.023
enforce the forest practice act to enforce the coastal code
00:21:10.220 --> 00:21:11.530
or the water code.
00:21:11.530 --> 00:21:13.823
And, and we don't think
00:21:13.823 --> 00:21:17.140
that this is the proper forum to address those issues.
00:21:17.140 --> 00:21:20.220
I think Your Honor's question in terms of the relevance
00:21:20.220 --> 00:21:24.380
of the other parties and it PG&E would welcome a discussion
00:21:24.380 --> 00:21:26.930
with all relevant agencies present.
00:21:26.930 --> 00:21:28.620
We don't think the complaint proceeding is
00:21:28.620 --> 00:21:29.760
the right way to address some
00:21:29.760 --> 00:21:32.320
of the issues that Mr. Graham has raised.
00:21:32.320 --> 00:21:35.810
It seems like he's raising questions more generally
00:21:35.810 --> 00:21:38.080
about PG&E practices going forward
00:21:38.080 --> 00:21:40.330
not necessarily what has happened in the past.
00:21:40.330 --> 00:21:41.163
And this would
00:21:41.163 --> 00:21:45.130
that would not be inappropriate issues to be raised
00:21:45.130 --> 00:21:46.880
in this complaint proceeding.
00:21:46.880 --> 00:21:49.060
We have been engaging in discussions
00:21:49.060 --> 00:21:50.993
with the various agencies to address the concerns
00:21:50.993 --> 00:21:53.990
that have been raised in the notices of violation.
00:21:53.990 --> 00:21:56.600
And we are working to address any concerns.
00:21:56.600 --> 00:21:59.090
But again, we don't think this complaint proceeding
00:21:59.090 --> 00:22:01.790
is the proper way to go about addressing these issues.
00:22:06.910 --> 00:22:07.898
Thank you, Ms. Edelstein's.
00:22:07.898 --> 00:22:11.973
Mr. Graham, do you have any comments on that?
00:22:14.100 --> 00:22:17.100
No Your Honor.
00:22:17.100 --> 00:22:19.980
Sorry. I raised my hand.
00:22:19.980 --> 00:22:23.621
I don't know if you, if that, if that came up or not
00:22:23.621 --> 00:22:27.462
but just a brief response that just to illustrate again
00:22:27.462 --> 00:22:31.870
we're not asking the Commission to adjudicate
00:22:31.870 --> 00:22:34.640
the NOVs that were, that were issued.
00:22:34.640 --> 00:22:36.190
However, we're using them more
00:22:36.190 --> 00:22:39.810
of a fact-based evidence standard that PG&E
00:22:39.810 --> 00:22:44.810
in this instance has performed as if the coastal act
00:22:44.930 --> 00:22:48.380
or the forest practice rules do not apply
00:22:48.380 --> 00:22:51.004
to their activities, to their fork, to their
00:22:51.004 --> 00:22:54.630
in a vegetation management activities.
00:22:54.630 --> 00:22:58.039
And really using these NOVs is to illustrate that fact
00:22:58.039 --> 00:23:03.039
we're not asking the Commission to adjudicate these NOVs
00:23:04.080 --> 00:23:06.670
these notices of violations.
00:23:06.670 --> 00:23:11.030
We would like PG&E to abide by the coastal act
00:23:11.030 --> 00:23:13.560
abide by the forest practice rules.
00:23:13.560 --> 00:23:18.560
And it seems to be there some disconnect between PG&E
00:23:19.180 --> 00:23:23.190
and the CQC and the coastal Commission and Cal fire
00:23:23.190 --> 00:23:27.100
as to what applies to PG&E in these instances.
00:23:27.100 --> 00:23:30.270
And we're in dire need of some guidance.
00:23:30.270 --> 00:23:33.270
And I believe PG&E is in dire need of some guidance.
00:23:33.270 --> 00:23:36.170
And this venue, the Commission before the Commission
00:23:36.170 --> 00:23:39.293
is the ideal place to seek that guidance.
00:23:40.445 --> 00:23:41.820
I'm sorry. Mr. Zazueta,
00:23:41.820 --> 00:23:43.520
I'm afraid you may have opened a can of worms.
00:23:43.520 --> 00:23:45.850
And now I have a question you just said
00:23:45.850 --> 00:23:48.170
that you don't want us to adjudicate
00:23:48.170 --> 00:23:51.440
whether or not PG&E has violated the coast lag.
00:23:51.440 --> 00:23:53.870
However you want us to provide some guidance
00:23:53.870 --> 00:23:56.780
on whether or not they should comply with the coastal act.
00:23:56.780 --> 00:23:59.721
As a matter of law, I would have assumed
00:23:59.721 --> 00:24:03.433
that PG&E must comply with whatever laws apply to it.
00:24:04.560 --> 00:24:06.490
So what exactly are you seeking
00:24:06.490 --> 00:24:09.090
from us if you're not seeking an adjudication
00:24:09.090 --> 00:24:11.770
on whether or not PG&E has violated that coastal act?
00:24:11.770 --> 00:24:15.430
For example, I suppose that it's not necessarily the
00:24:15.430 --> 00:24:20.430
because the coastal Commission has jurisdiction to, to
00:24:21.770 --> 00:24:26.130
to adjudicate it's it has enforcement jurisdiction
00:24:26.130 --> 00:24:28.423
to adjudicate its notices of violation.
00:24:29.340 --> 00:24:33.640
We're asking that PG&E comply with the coastal act.
00:24:33.640 --> 00:24:37.900
And that, I guess it's not necessarily that the Commission
00:24:37.900 --> 00:24:41.790
adjudicate the specifics of the notices of violation
00:24:41.790 --> 00:24:45.184
for Cal fire and for the coastal Commission, but
00:24:45.184 --> 00:24:50.184
that there is a order and decision informing PG
00:24:51.907 --> 00:24:54.940
and E that it is subject to the coastal act because
00:24:54.940 --> 00:24:58.440
as we saw and the County of Santa Cruz, there was
00:24:58.440 --> 00:25:02.440
no coastal development permit sought for the activities
00:25:02.440 --> 00:25:07.230
performed after our wildfire season in 2020
00:25:07.230 --> 00:25:08.530
Is your allegation.
00:25:08.530 --> 00:25:09.363
Forgive me.
00:25:10.980 --> 00:25:12.750
And I hate to ask these questions at a PHC, but
00:25:12.750 --> 00:25:16.220
because the can has been opened, I am is your allegation
00:25:16.220 --> 00:25:19.020
that somehow the Commission has provided PG&E
00:25:19.020 --> 00:25:23.261
with the ability to circumvent because, or forestry acts
00:25:23.261 --> 00:25:26.373
based upon Commissioned rules or orders.
00:25:28.030 --> 00:25:30.121
That's not our allegation here.
00:25:30.121 --> 00:25:30.954
Okay.
00:25:32.270 --> 00:25:34.560
I think it's, it's more along the lines that there
00:25:34.560 --> 00:25:37.560
there hasn't been, or at least it hasn't been clear from
00:25:37.560 --> 00:25:40.930
from the evidence that we've seen or any documentation
00:25:40.930 --> 00:25:45.930
or case law that we've read, that there is clear standards
00:25:46.070 --> 00:25:48.923
through which the PG&E is subject to.
00:25:52.530 --> 00:25:53.450
I'm sorry, Judge Toy.
00:25:53.450 --> 00:25:56.416
I hijacked your line of questioning.
00:25:56.416 --> 00:25:58.316
It is okay, I had the same question.
00:26:00.570 --> 00:26:02.010
Did you have any others?
00:26:02.010 --> 00:26:04.533
I think at this point you have enough to go on-
00:26:05.670 --> 00:26:09.050
And I, I appreciate this actually a lot to, to discuss
00:26:09.050 --> 00:26:12.694
obviously a lot of this will be laid out in our response
00:26:12.694 --> 00:26:17.670
to the motion to dismiss, but this is very helpful
00:26:17.670 --> 00:26:20.760
for the county to discuss with Your Honors
00:26:20.760 --> 00:26:22.410
to get a better idea of
00:26:22.410 --> 00:26:25.143
of what exactly is left to be answered.
00:26:27.450 --> 00:26:29.103
Okay. Thank you.
00:26:30.300 --> 00:26:32.000
Ms. Edelstein do you have comment?
00:26:32.920 --> 00:26:33.753
Yeah.
00:26:33.753 --> 00:26:34.910
So I just wanted to add that, you know,
00:26:34.910 --> 00:26:37.317
PG&E emergency response efforts in response
00:26:37.317 --> 00:26:39.790
to the fires was carried out in coordination
00:26:39.790 --> 00:26:42.410
with Cal fire and PG&E has been in touch
00:26:42.410 --> 00:26:44.590
with the other agency.
00:26:44.590 --> 00:26:47.160
Again, we do not believe this complaint.
00:26:47.160 --> 00:26:50.440
Proceeding is the proper forum, nor do we believe the
00:26:50.440 --> 00:26:52.970
Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate whether
00:26:52.970 --> 00:26:55.810
or not PG&E required to obtain certain permits
00:26:55.810 --> 00:26:58.030
under either the forest practice acts
00:26:58.030 --> 00:27:03.030
or the water code or the coastal act.
00:27:03.940 --> 00:27:07.313
Those are issues to be determined by those agencies.
00:27:09.810 --> 00:27:10.710
Okay. Thank you.
00:27:12.240 --> 00:27:14.100
Are there any other procedural matters that the
00:27:14.100 --> 00:27:18.763
parties believe need to be addressed today county?
00:27:23.180 --> 00:27:24.510
No, Your Honor.
00:27:24.510 --> 00:27:25.573
Thank you, PG&E.
00:27:29.870 --> 00:27:31.160
Well, just one other matter
00:27:31.160 --> 00:27:35.050
in terms of either alternative dispute resolutions
00:27:35.050 --> 00:27:37.840
or settlement discussions, we happen engaging
00:27:37.840 --> 00:27:40.970
in discussions with the county PG&E
00:27:40.970 --> 00:27:43.190
Welcome to continuing those discussions as well
00:27:43.190 --> 00:27:47.420
either through the Commission's ADR process
00:27:47.420 --> 00:27:51.183
or outside of that process directly with the county.
00:27:53.480 --> 00:27:56.220
Certainly we welcome the parties,
00:27:56.220 --> 00:27:58.800
utilizing our IDR process.
00:27:58.800 --> 00:28:00.970
I'm not sure if the county's familiar with it
00:28:00.970 --> 00:28:05.100
but we have a website detailing the alternative
00:28:05.100 --> 00:28:06.673
dispute resolution process.
00:28:09.210 --> 00:28:12.530
Basically the parties sit down with a mediator.
00:28:12.530 --> 00:28:14.380
One of the ALJs typically here
00:28:14.380 --> 00:28:17.770
at the Commission to work through the facts
00:28:17.770 --> 00:28:22.453
and the laws to sort of come to a minimal conclusion.
00:28:25.010 --> 00:28:27.910
Going off the record for a second court reporter.
00:28:27.910 --> 00:28:29.833
Do you need anything else from us?
00:28:31.110 --> 00:28:31.943
Thank you.
00:28:33.410 --> 00:28:34.243
You know, Jake, Jordy
00:28:34.243 --> 00:28:36.373
is there anything else you'd like to discuss?
00:28:38.500 --> 00:28:39.460
No, I'm good ALJ.
00:28:39.460 --> 00:28:40.400
Thank you.
00:28:40.400 --> 00:28:42.800
Thanks. Say back on the record
00:28:42.800 --> 00:28:44.900
there being nothing else to discuss today.
00:28:44.900 --> 00:28:46.490
We are adjourned.
00:28:46.490 --> 00:28:48.290
Thank you everyone for coming today.
00:28:49.440 --> 00:28:50.510
Thank you.
00:28:50.510 --> 00:28:51.343
Thank you.