SDG&E's shut-off strategy on hold

PUC to scrutinize fire-prevention plan

By Onell R. Soto

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

October 18, 2008

SAN DIEGO – San Diego Gas & Electric Co. said yesterday that it will back down from its controversial plan to shut off power to rural customers during dry, windy conditions if state regulators object.

The state Public Utilities Commission said it is taking a look at whether SDG&E has the authority it claims it has to shut off service.

The utility is fighting lawsuits from hundreds of burned-out homeowners who say it is responsible for arcing power lines that started three of the fires that scorched the county a year ago.

It is unclear whether SDG&E's proposal meets the requirements of a PUC rule – Rule 14 – that spells out the conditions under which the utility can cut off power to customers, commission spokeswoman Terrie Prosper said in an e-mail.

“We are looking into whether SDG&E has that authority,” she said.

“In order to implement its fire-prevention plan, SDG&E must demonstrate that it has exercised reasonable diligence in keeping the lights on. We're looking into SDG&E's proposal, which may include a full public airing of the plan to obtain public input.”

The proposal to cut power – which SDG&E said could reduce the fire threat that occurs when wind knocks down live wires – has raised worries that firefighters might run out of water; schools would have no light or heat; residents would lose access to radio, television and Internet news; and medical devices and cell phones wouldn't work.

The rule, which SDG&E is trying to get changed, requires the utility to do what it can – “reasonable diligence,” in legal terms – to keep the lights on.

“The question is whether they meet that threshold with the program they are proposing,” Prosper said.

SDG&E has said that it doesn't need a thumbs-up from the PUC to go forward with its plan, but will stop if the PUC tells it to.

“SDG&E has the authority to move forward with our preparedness plan, including proactive power shut-off to high-fire-risk areas in extreme weather conditions,” spokeswoman Stephanie Donovan said.

She said state law requires the company to operate the power system safely.

“However, if the CPUC formally instructs us not to implement an element of the preparedness plan, we will comply,” Donovan said. “The commission doesn't need a proceeding or hearing to do that.”

She added that the proposed rule change is unrelated.

The change adds language that SDG&E “does not guarantee” its customers uninterrupted power and that it can cut electricity when it decides safety and emergency conditions warrant.

Company officials have said the change is intended to bring SDG&E in line with Northern California's Pacific Gas & Electric.

Although its version of Rule 14 reads substantially the same as SDG&E's proposal, PG&E doesn't proactively shut off power to its customers during fire weather, a spokesman said.

“Rule 14 has to do with SDG&E's liability if it has to interrupt service,” Donovan said.

What SDG&E does is intrinsically tied to its liability, said Scott Blaising, a Sacramento lawyer who regularly represents public utilities before the PUC.

“Although SDG&E may feel that it has the discretion to disconnect service, I doubt they will exercise this discretion unless they really need to do so,” he said.

It's unclear under the existing rules whether SDG&E can do what it wants, and the changes it's proposing would give it the authority it seeks, said lawyer Mark Fogelman, a former PUC assistant general counsel.

The PUC's job is to protect the public interest, he said. The problem is that there are two public policies in conflict: preventing fires and providing power.

“Both of these policies can really affect public safety,” Fogelman said.

The proposed changes to Rule 14 drew about 15 protest letters from water districts, schools, politicians and activists.

San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob implored commissioners this week to clarify whether the power company can shut off parts of its grid.

“While SDG&E continues to claim it has the right to cut power without a change to Rule 14, it is suspect that the utility sought to change Rule 14 at the very same (time) it was crafting its plan to cut power during high winds,” Jacob wrote in her protest letter.

Backcountry activist Diane Conklin said the proposed rule change would give the utility too much authority.

“This language change effectively absolves SDG&E of any responsibility to provide power to its customers, since the decision regarding public safety is solely at its own discretion,” she wrote.

SDG&E proposed the modification using a process for routine and noncontroversial changes, and hoped it would be effective Oct. 27. The protests appear to have derailed that.

Donovan agreed that the rule change will now likely take months.

And without changing Rule 14, the liability of shutting off power as it has proposed is too high, said Michael Shames of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego.

“Without revision, SDG&E would be highly unlikely to implement this plan, it would open them up to legal exposure,” he said. “Its lawyers are busy enough.”

Shames opposes both the plan to cut power to the backcountry and the proposed rule change.

The power company suspended the shut-off program this week so it could notify customers who depend on electrical medical equipment and mollify worried school officials and water districts that have sued SDG&E over the plan.

Source Article: SignOnSanDiego.com