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.