Troubleman to appear in court
Utility still denies use of drone
The Pacific Gas & Electric Co. informed U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup on Tuesday that the troubleman who initially responded to the Dixie Fire will appear in court on September 13.
On Wednesday, the company responded to several questions the court had for it including those surrounding the drone and a tree stump that the company claimed was the tree that started the fire.
The company maintained in its response on Wednesday that the only two flights that the company was aware of were on July 13 and both were finished by 12:30 p.m. that day.
The company also told Alsup that it cannot definitively determine if one of its contractors did anything on their own.
However, the company did say that an employee saw a Jeep with the words “Drone Team” on its side in a parking lot along Highway 70 about 14 miles south of Cresta Dam.
That employee, who also used to work for Cal Fire, said he had heard about a drone interfering with the air operations July 13, so he took pictures of the Jeep and its license plate and turned that information over to the Butte County Sheriff’s Office.
While the employee reportedly did not know whether or not the vehicle belonged to a company drone contractor, the company told the court the Jeep belongs to one of two drone contractors who had been on a dispatch schedule and received clearance for flights to inspect certain transmission lines for PG&E in Butte and Plumas counties that morning.
But the company said that neither contractor was scheduled to operate drones over or near the Bucks Creek 1101 Distribution Circuit.
The company also said that its dispatch records do not show that either contractor asked for or received clearance for a flight over the Bucks Creek Circuit or of the Dixie Fire.
PG&E says its records also do not show whether either contractor operated a drone after they completed their PG&E work for the day over the Dixie Fire or anywhere else.
The company also said that its policy prohibits flights at night and requires at least 3 miles of visibility.
In its filings on Wednesday, the company quoted an Aug. 12 KCBS story on the issue.
“Despite some speculation that the drone might have been one of PG&E’s, according to (Butte County District Attorney Mike) Ramsey all evidence points to the contrary. As of right now, he believes the drone most likely belongs to an individual. ‘A number of tangents are still being explored,’ he said.”
On Wednesday the company reiterated to the court that it has not identified any individual or company who flew a drone near the Dixie Fire on the evening of July 13. As it said in its Aug. 16 filing, the company says it has not seen any indication that any PG&E or employee was instructed or asked to fly a drone near the fire on July 13.
The company also responded to the court’s questions about a picture it submitted in late July that the company said was the stump of the tree that may have been at the start of the Dixie Fire.
Alsup had told the company that he did not think it was possible for that to be the same stump and requested that the company submit the photo of the real stump.
On Wednesday the company told the court that that was the stump in question. It also filed the full set of photos from the July 18 inspection of the site that Cal Fire allowed two PG&E contractors and one electrical worker employee to attend.
The company said “burning on the tree was concentrated at the base and burning in the immediately surrounding area was uneven.”
The company wrote in the filing the tree and the stump in question had been removed by Cal Fire or law enforcement for what they assumed to be evidence.
The company also told the judge that it appears that that was the only tree or stump that Cal Fire removed from the site.
“Cal Fire has not yet expressed any view concerning the significance, if any, of the burn patterns on the tree or on nearby trees and shrubbery,” the company wrote. “Investigation concerning the precise cause, origin, and course of the fire is ongoing.”
The company said it has asked for access to the evidence that Cal Fire collected from the site but the request was denied.
The company says that while it was able to take photos of the tree while it was still leaning on the line from an uphill location they were unable to get down the hill in time before Cal Fire cut the tree forcing it to fall to the ground.
The company said it was unable to take photos of the base of the tree or the stump while the tree was still leaning on the line.
So their employees took photos of the stump, then still in place, and the rest of the tree, which was by then lying on the ground.
The company also claimed that Cal Fire removed sections of the tree that day. The company added that while it did not observe the stump’s removal, it appeared to them that Cal Fire (or other law enforcement) removed the stump after July 18 and before Cal Fire released the site on July 23.