Thread by @thejdmorris

Judge Alsup asks of PG&E lawyer why it paid $4.5B to company owners in recent years when that money could have been used to trim trees.

"Why is it PG&E always say safety is our number one thing ... it's not really true," he says.

Judge Alsup and one of the PG&E lawyers are now getting into a testy exchange about how CA utilities and regulators apply the state's vegetation management laws. The judge thinks the law is really stricter than how PG&E and the CPUC implement it re power lines

PG&E lawyer says it doesn't matter because the company wants to dramatically beef up its vegetation management around power lines. But it will take 8 years, mostly because of a lack of qualified tree trimmers, he says

"This is a highly hazardous job," PG&E lawyer says of tree trimming around power lines, noting that 100 people nationwide were killed recently doing that type of work. Says the company is taking other steps to improve safety in the meantime

Alsup asked if PG&E can clear cut trees that may fall on its power lines. "You spend so much money on lobbying," he tells the utility's lawyer, it could get a law passed today allowing it to do that

Judge also says if he put a strict order on PG&E requiring aggressive vegetation management, landowners who tried to get in the way could be quickly summoned to federal court to answer why they're putting brakes on fire prevention

But at the end of the day it's not a money or a process problem. PGE lawyer: "There aren't enough qualified tree trimmers in the country" to do what Alsup imagines on the timeline he wants -- all lines inspected and trees trimmed this year

"PG&E understands and accepts that it has a credibility problem," lawyer says, "which is why I couldn't stand up here and say ... trust us, we got it"

Responding to PG&E's argument about not enough tree trimmers, Alsup says "I don't believe you've exhausted the supply of people who know what they're doing." Suggests they could turn to Cal Fire

Judge Alsup now turns to the issue of whether PG&E should intentionally turn off power during dangerous fire weather. "To me, just as an ordinary mortal .... PG&E should know the safety limits of its own system"

PG&E attorney says that, after the #CampFire, the utility added egress — how quickly a town can evacuate — to list of factors it will consider when deciding whether to turn off power lines during dangerous fire weather

Alsup asks why PG&E didn't turn off power before #CampFire despite data showing high winds.

PG&E says its weather monitoring ability hasn't been great historically but it's adding a lot more weather stations.

"OK good, get the little windmills going," Alsup says, "but this is the data you have now and b/c you don't like the data you're saying it's not good enough"

Alsup asks if 2019 fire season will start and "will we be seeing headlines: 'PG&E has done it again' — started another fire, and some other town has burned down because you didn't turn the power off or you didn't trim the trees?"

Just as Alsup was about to call a break, attorney Frank Pitre -- who has sued PG&E over San Bruno and fires -- approaches, says his team has "unique insight" into some of the issues discussed today. Judge says he'll let them speak later.

Had to stop tweeting for a bit so I could file something but back now! The @californiapuc is now talking to Alsup about its role regulating utilities, vegetation management and fires

ALSUP to PUC: "How did it happen that so many fires occurred under your regulation?" noting 2017 fires, #CampFire. "It sounds harsh but that's what the people of California deserve to know"

PUC: Your honor that is a very difficult question to answer

Alsup says he "would have nothing to do wit this" except he happens to be judge overseeing PG&E's probation.

"I feel a responsibility, after 2 years of this, to step in and do something ... if somebody else doesn't"

Judge allowing fire plaintiff's attorney Frank Pitre to address him but says "please don't try to get me to do an end urn around the bankruptcy just because your case has been stayed." Pitre says, essentially, that's not what he's here for

Pitre: "We have heard that there are complexities with de-energization. I disagree." He says San Diego Gas & Electric has effectively used power shutoffs to prevent fires for nearly a decade.

(PG&E just created its policy last year and has only done it once)

Pitre thinks PG&E could style itself more like SDG&E and make better use of power shutoffs while it works to cure what he calls the "real cancer" — risk management

Pitre says PG&E could mitigate adverse impacts of power shutoffs through aggressive public noticing when it knows dangerous fire weather is coming, like how we get lots of advance notice about hurricanes

Alsup is asking if, since SDG&E started using power shutoffs, have there been any fires started by utility equipment? Has anyone died because of lack of electricity?

Pitre doesn't think so. @Sammy_Roth do you know if he's right?

A CPUC official comes up and says it depends how you define "wildfire." Says there have been wildfires in San Diego around utility equipment but "none of them have escalated to the point of being catastrophic," she thinks, after power shutoff policy was implemented

Another CPUC official is noting how San Diego Gas & Electric has "very unique" weather monitoring abilities with cameras throughout their territory.

I heard the same from Sonoma County leaders who went to SD after Santa Rosa fires when I was working for @NorthBayNews

also important to note PG&E is trying to do some of the same things San Diego has done. They're installing a bunch of HD fire watching cameras, doing the power shutoffs, etc. And PG&E's service territory is *way* bigger

The CPUC points out that a lot of the issues Alsup's hearing has raised align with what they're already looking at on the regulatory side.

"That's an excellent question," the judge says, "But wouldn't you agree that we need strong medicine" before 2019 fire season starts?

Pitre is back before the judge now. He says PG&E has "underestimated the risks that exist of trees that are hazardous. It's a real problem."

PG&E lawyer Kevin Orsini back up now, says the company has changed from the way it was during San Bruno, Wine Country fires and knows it needs to "fundamentally change"

"If we get into the emails," Judge Alsup asks PG&E's lawyer, will the court find that when the company decided not to turn off power, "it considered profits?"

Orsini, the lawyer: "Not from anything I've ever seen."

Alsup to PG&E: "It seems like you're trying to find excuses to leave the power on." People who need electricity will "leave the garage door open," get generators etc. if needed, he says

"There are make-do solutions, but they're all better than another catastrophic fire"

Orsini argues power shutoffs affect entire communities and PG&E is trying to be conscious of those. I wrote before about the intense and lingering dissatisfaction among those who experienced PG&E's first planned blackout:

sfchronicle.com/california-wil…

Alsup says he's not going to rule on his PG&E wildfire proposal today. He wants to see a fire prevention plan the utility is due to submit to regulators.

Yet he suggests one new probation term might be "PG&E shall not start another fire. But maybe that's too simple"

Judge Alsup has lived in CA almost 50 years. The last 2 years of fires, he says, "have been the single worst catastrophic evens that I've seen." He notes deaths in Butte County, elsewhere, says "we cannot continue to sustain" this level of death and destruction. Hearing over now