JUDGE QUESTIONS PG&E AS IT DENIES FLYING DRONES AT TIME OF DIXIE FIRE
Court wants to see troubleman Sept. 13
Pacific Gas & Electric denied flying drones at the time of the start of the Dixie Fire on Monday following an order by Senior Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
However, on Tuesday, Alsup appeared to question that assertion.
In the Aug. 16 response to Alsup’s request, the company said two contractors flew drones on the morning of July 13 in Butte and Plumas counties.
The company says both flights were completed by 12:30 p.m., about five hours before the fire started.
According to the filings, the company said one of the contractors operated a drone in Plumas County as part of an inspection process that included taking images of a single structure in the Caribou-Westwood line about 30 miles from where the Dixie Fire apparently started.
The company also said that flight records and timestamps show that the flight was finished by 11 a.m.
The second flight, the company says, was for a second contractor to take images of a single structure in the Caribou-Westwood line about 20 miles away from the fire.
That flight, the company said, was completed by 12:30 p.m., several hours before the Dixie Fire started.
The company says no other flights were authorized or taken on behalf of PG&E in either county July 13. The company also says it has not identified anyone who operated a drone close to Dixie Fire that day and does not know why anyone would operate a drone in that area.
But on Tuesday, Alsup told the company that the court has received information that PG&E had told the monitor that PG&E believed the drone that interfered with Dixie firefighting on July 13 was being flown by a PG&E contractor.
But the company had also told the monitor that the contractor was not doing work for PG&E at the time of the interference because its records showed that the contractor had completed the surveillance work for the day.
Judge Alsup also asked if it was true that PG&E believed that a PG&E contractor operated the drone — regardless of whether it was on behalf of PG&E or not. The judge also asked what was the source of this information and if PG&E believes a contractor operated a drone independently of the company at the time of the fire.
The court wants PG&E to submit the answers to those questions no later than Aug. 31
But before the company has to submit those answers, it has until noon Tuesday, Aug. 24 to advise the court if it will have its troubleman — someone who investigates the cause of a power outage — in court for a Sept. 13 hearing. The court order says that if the company fails to inform the court that the troubleman will be there on the Sept. 13, the court will issue a subpoena.
In addition to that, the court wants transcripts of any 911 call to Cal Fire reporting the Dixie Fire by the troubleman, his supervisor and any other company employee.
The judge also wants transcripts of radio calls that the troubleman made to dispatch centers at Rocklin and Chico, to his supervisor, to Cal Fire, and to any other emergency responder.
The judge also wants the company to produce transcripts of radio calls made to the troubleman by his supervisor as well as any other party in response to the initial notification of the Dixie Fire.
The court told the company that if such transcripts are not possible it wants summaries. The court will also allow the company to produce, under seal, the name and address where a subpoena may be served for the PG&E employee or employees who summarized to the monitor the information about another employee spotting a drone in a contractor’s car July 14, the day after the fire started.
By Aug. 31, the judge wants to know, if line disruption was recorded at 6:48 a.m. July 13 but, 10 hours later, the troubleman saw the fire — after 4:40 p.m. — then how the fire was only 600 or 800 square feet in size.
The court says that if the fire had begun at or about when the disruption occurred, the fire would have grown many times larger and faster than that.
The judge also wants to know when the troubleman, evidently using his binoculars, first saw the blown fuse hanging down and where exactly he was.
Alsup noted that there was no fire noticed by anyone until the troubleman arrived on the site, and he wants to know what the troubleman may have done that could’ve accidentally caused the fire.
The court also wants to know what other sources of ignition were in the area and if a blown fuse itself could’ve sparked the fire.
The court noted that on July 28 the company said that the troubleman went to the pole to replace a blown fuse but never actually noted if the fuse was replaced.
Alsup wants to know if the troubleman replaced a the blown fuse or tried to replace the fuse, and if he did replace it, if that would have that have allowed power to flow in that line (since the circuit was reported as otherwise having a “good load”) and pose a risk of arcing where the tree pushed the lines together.
Other questions from Alsup:
• Did the troubleman hear any arcing on the line?
• When the troubleman replaced the blown fuse (if he did), how did it react upon being installed? Did it blow again?
• Did it emit a smell? Crackle? All fuses from the site should be preserved as evidence.
• Identify by pole number the pole that corresponded with fuse 17733.
• From the blown fuse, how far away was the tree in question and how far away was the oval-shaped fire? Couldn’t the downed tree be seen from the ground standing by the pole?
• How close to the distribution line and downed tree was the oval-shaped fire when the troubleman first saw it, and what relationship did it have to them?
• Did the PG&E sensors record any surge or return of power, even momentarily, on any of the lines in question on July 13 other than the 6:48 a.m. event? If so, set forth the details of any return of power or surges, regardless of how brief.
• When the troubleman was fighting the fire, to what extent, by his observation, had the flames gotten into the brush, into the trees, versus remaining in the grass?