PG&E pushes back on judge’s proposals
Utility opposes ideas on treetrimming, bonuses
Forcing Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to hire its own treetrimming workforce, instead of relying on contractors to keep vegetation away from power lines, would not have the firesafety benefits envisioned by a federal judge or alleviate the need for fireprevention blackouts, attorneys for the utility say.
PG&E lawyers have also pushed back on a proposal from U.S. District Judge William Alsup to prevent the company from awarding any bonuses to executives or managers unless it fulfills certain fire safety goals. The restriction would intrude on the purview of state regulators and PG&E’s bankruptcy judge, attorneys said.
PG&E’s filing came in response to two recent proposals from Alsup, who is overseeing the company’s probation arising from the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion and has taken a strong interest in the company’s wildfire problems.
Alsup in January said he might impose the tree-trimmer requirement after the company admitted it fell short on some parts of its statemandated fireprevention plan last year. One week later, Alsup proposed tying “all bonuses and other incentives for supervisors and above” to PG&E’s fulfillment of its state fire plan “and other safety goals.” The judge set a hearing for Feb. 19.
PG&E told Alsup that his treetrimmer proposal appeared to be “based on the mistaken premise” that a lack of staffing resources kept the company from complying with state law and its firesafety goals.
But PG&E “faced an unprecedented volume of tree work in 2019” that could not be finished until the company had “ramped up” its expanded workforce of con
tractors, whose ranks more than tripled, the company’s lawyers said.
PG&E blamed the small amount of vegetation work recorded as incomplete at the end of the year largely on trees that were only recently flagged as a problem, permitting issues, resistance from customers and “lagging contractor invoicing.”
PG&E also said “additional qualified tree workers do not currently exist in California.” Hiring its own vegetation management crews would merely force the company to poach workers from its contractors, attorneys for PG&E said.
In 2016, PG&E hired a vegetation management consultant to review the prospect of bringing in tree trimmers from out of state, according to the company’s court filing. Outside firms said they could deploy “possibly a few hundred” tree trimmers on an emergency basis and were unwilling to “commit longterm to developing a workforce in California,” attorneys said.
The company also said that building its own treetrimming workforce could cost more than $1 billion. PG&E said it hasn’t used its own tree trimmers for at least 40 years.
“The middle of California’s wildfire emergency is not the time for PG&E to reverse course on the entire structure of its vegetation management work and spend significant time and resources that are better devoted to improving current arrangements and completing other important wildfire mitigation measures,” attorneys for the company said.
And while enhanced treetrimming is “an integral part” of PG&E’s attempts to reduce fire risk, its ability to limit the need for future blackouts during dry and windy weather hinges largely on grid improvements and better weather forecasting, the court filing said. PG&E believes it would still consider turning off power even if it was in perfect compliance with vegetationmanagement rules.
PG&E said Alsup’s proposed bonus restrictions would interfere with the work of its state regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission, as well as with matters that may come up in Bankruptcy Court.
Attorneys noted that California lawmakers passed new legislation, AB1054, that regulates the company’s executive pay practices and “expressly permits that compensation to be determined by a mix of safety and financial considerations.”
“That decision reflects California’s judgment, amply supported by the legislative record, that PG&E cannot safely provide power unless it is financially stable,” lawyers for the company told Alsup.
PG&E said “there is no evidence” to suggest that Alsup’s proposal would make the company safer. In fact, PG&E suggested that linking executive bonuses exclusively to safety metrics could motivate company leaders to more routinely implement fireprevention blackouts.
Alsup has also sent PG&E a detailed list of questions about its electric system and powerline inspections. Among his instructions to the company is that it provide “the ten most pertinent” records showing “the true extent” to which it knew that worn transmission tower hooks were an issue before the 2018 Camp Fire.
PG&E must respond to those questions by Tuesday.