By Chris Finnie
In a word—fire. Electric equipment has sparked a number of huge wildfires in recent years, all over California. The losses have been enormous. So has the legal liability for the public utilities that owned the equipment. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which has regulatory authority over these companies, developed regulations to “enhance” fire safety in high-fire-threat districts in 2017. Many of the regulated utilities submitted arguments against the proposals. Surprisingly, PG&E argued that there was no evidence that trees growing into power lines are a major source of wildfires, and that several proposed sections of the plan would not mitigate the fire hazard of trees falling onto power lines. However, they also argued that extending the usual 4-foot clearance zone between bare-line conductors and vegetation would not add significant costs for ratepayers. In fact, San Diego Gas & Electric argued it might reduce them as they wouldn’t have to trim as often.
All of these arguments seem to have some flaws, as we’ll explore in the rest of this article.
Legal Authority
However, despite arguments to the contrary the CPUC granted utilities with additional authority to enlarge the scope of vegetation clearing. One of the exceptions to this, as stated in the CPUC documents, is for “mature trees whose trunks and major limbs are located more than six inches, but less than the clearance required… from primary distributions conductors.” These are exempt if the trunks and limbs are “of sufficient strength and rigidity to prevent the trunk or limb from encroaching upon the six-inch minimum clearance under reasonably foreseeable local wind and weather conditions.” As you can see, many of the trees that have been marked for drastic limbing or removal would be exempt under this provision.
In fact, according to a local professional arborist, drastic limbing of trees may actually increase the possibility of limb failures for two reasons: 1) new limbs that grow after will be less firmly attached than the original limbs and, 2) when these weakened limbs fail, there will be no stronger limbs under them to prevent them from falling into the lines. And the higher branches that might remain are more prone to break because they’re more exposed to the wind.
Too Many Agencies
Though the CPUC has the authority to issue these guidelines to utility companies, there are many other government entities with authority over the land on which this tree cutting is happening.
Trees along state highways like 9 and 236 may be in the highway right of way. Caltrans has the authority to authorize work on them. If you believe a marked tree is on your private property, you need to prove it—and quickly, because Caltrans has already authorized cutting.
However, even with Caltrans permission, CAL FIRE considers these timber operations, and no cutting should occur without permission from CAL FIRE, according to three CAL FIRE chiefs I spoke to. CAL FIRE deputy chief Mike Wilson did say that they are aware that PG&E is “in violation of quite a few forestry rules.” Richard Sampson, division chief and unit forester for this district says, “The Public Resources Code requires the 4-foot clearance, and we enforce that. When they’re doing their clearing, they’re doing a timberland conversion, so the trees are no longer available for watershed protection. For this, they need to file a conversion exemption.” In fact, CAL FIRE issued a memo to chiefs on October 18, 2018, telling them that utility companies need to submit a Public Agency, Public and Private Utility Right-of-Way Exemption Notice to regional offices. However, there is a law that allows an exemption for utility lines. Even with this exemption, timber operations need to comply with provisions of the Forest Practice Act. As of November 1, PG&E has not submitted an exemption notice for the cutting they’re already doing south of Felton—or for any other work in the San Lorenzo Valley. Chief Sampson says, “We’re going to be regulating how they do it and how they dispose of materials.” If you see a possible violation, you may report it to CAL FIRE.
Santa Cruz County has similar authority for the right of way on county roads. According to Steven Wiesner, assistant director of public works for the county, that right of way is 40-60 feet. J.M. Brown, fifth-district county analyst, says that PG&E has an ongoing permit for the 4-foot trimming they usually do. But the county has not issued a new permit for the expanded work. In fact, PG&E did not even tell the county they were going to be doing this work until a day before they set up the base camp in Scotts Valley in September. The county has been in negotiation with them about the permit ever since. Until a permit is issued, PG&E does not have authority to cut any marked trees in the county right of way. The county will publicize the conditions of the permit once it’s issued.
And that’s not all. The county and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District (SLVWD) have authority over riparian corridors. The county defines riparian corridors as “(1) Lands within a stream channel, including the stream and the area between the mean rainy season (bankfull) flowlines; (2) Lands extending 50 feet (measured horizontally) out from each side of a perennial stream. Distance shall be measured from the mean rainy season (bankfull) flowline; (3) Lands extending 30 feet (measured horizontally) out from each side of an intermittent stream. Distance shall be measured from the mean rainy season (bankfull) flowline.” This also includes “lands containing a riparian woodland.” The SLVWD says they have not been contacted by PG&E.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has jurisdiction over conservation of wildlife and habitat. And NOAA may get involved if fish in streams and creeks migrate to the sea.
Unfortunately, the result of all this agency overlap seems to be that PG&E is just trying to ignore all of them, and only working with any of them when the agency in question forces them to. It also makes it more difficult for local residents to know exactly who to contact when they have a problem or concern. But it is important to contact relevant agencies. The ones the Bulletin contacted for this article said they would respond to complaints.
Short-term Solution
At the PG&E Answer Center in Ben Lomond on October 24, one PG&E employee admitted to a group of residents that this is a short-term fix. Eventually PG&E will have to upgrade its infrastructure as supervisor McPherson and assemblymember Stone suggested they do in a letter to the company on October 18. In addition to criticizing PG&E for a lack of communication and transparency, the letter says, “Removing vegetation within a 24-foot radius of power lines will have an indelible impact on heavily forested areas such as the San Lorenzo Valley, thus causing the potential loss of critical habitat and increasing the likelihood of erosion and the introduction of invasive species, among other environmental and safety concerns.” They were equally critical of the lack of a long-term fix. “It may be a less expensive and complicated endeavor for PG&E to prioritize vegetation removal over infrastructure replacement and repair. However, hardening the system in the short term, rather than in the long term as PG&E has previously stated, could prove to be as effective, if not more so, than vegetation management at reducing immediate risk of fire danger.”
PG&E finally replied on October 29, with vague promises of “more detail on our system hardening plans in our 2020 General Rate Case, which we expect to file with the CPUC in mid-December.” In other words, they’ll do it if we pay for it with higher rates.
Kevin Collins, a retired general contractor who lives in Lompico and is a member of the Valley Women’s Club’s Environmental Committee, filed a formal Safety Complaint to the CPUC against the PG&E Wildfire Safety Program in August. In an interview with the Bulletin, Collins said that, in addition to improved lines and poles, high-impedance-arc-fault-interruption devices are available, and have been tested by San Diego Gas & Electric. The devices shut off power when a wire falls, preventing the risk of fire. He says, “Now they don’t know where the failure is until they get a call. Then they have to send a crew out to manually open a switch downstream from the current. With the interruption devices, they can shut off current in less than a second on a feeder circuit, according to the San Diego study.” Collins says GE and a Swiss company build interrupts that can be installed at substations too, and that the California Energy Commission is making grants to utilities to make their system more fire resistant through the EPIC program.
Badly Executed
In addition to the other issues we’ve already covered, the arborist we talked to was critical of the risk-management assessment protocol PG&E was using. He says PG&E has years of data about tree and limb failure. In addition, California has a tree failure report that PG&E has access to. This report shows that falling redwood branches cause more electrical failures than any other type of tree.
However, damaged and diseased trees are also a known risk. And he observed that PG&E does not seem to be removing trees with defects obvious to any arborist. He also noted that local Douglas Firs have been hit with a damaging fungus. In his opinion, a thorough assessment would test for that after the first rain so they could remove affected trees.
Finally, when the Bulletin asked about the consequences of some of the extreme “trim” jobs being done to trees, he conceded that removing too much foliage puts trees under stress, which could tip them into an irreversible cycle of decline, as could leaving them with a low live-crown ratio after too many branches are removed.
What You Can Do
Nobody wants a wildfire. But nobody wants the consequences we’ve described from a badly executed tree removal and trimming job either. Since that’s what we seem to be getting, we need to know how to protect ourselves.
The CPUC guidelines say that the utilities do not have to remove vegetation if “permission was refused or unobtainable.” PG&E told the Bulletin that they were removing and trimming trees first where they’ve received permission. They will approach property owners again during the next round of work and trying to negotiate with them. When asked by the Bulletin about residents who’d been threatened by field personnel that they could be liable for the cost of fighting a fire if their tree was found to have caused or contributed to it, a PG&E outreach specialist said that wasn’t true, and nobody should be saying it—even through a PG&E media relations person did say something remarkably similar to the Sentinel. PG&E also said that workers would not apply herbicide to cut stumps if property owners refused it.
But Alison Breeze, who brought a list of questions from a local Facebook group about the PG&E program, probably got more responses than anybody at the Ben Lomond meeting by being doggedly persistent with everybody she talked to from PG&E. She shared the answers with the group, and gave the Bulletin permission to share some too.
To address concerns you have about what PG&E is going to do on your property, when they can access the property, or other conditions, call 1-877-295-4949 or email wildfiresafety@pge.com. Allison notes that they would only take one comment per call in her experience. Despite several requests to talk to a supervisor, I still haven’t received a call after more than two weeks. So, while they’ll make notes on your file, the follow-through remains an issue. Others have said the same thing about requests to talk to an arborist.
Redwoods should not be removed if the tree is more than 24 inches in diameter at breast height (4.5 feet), at least six inches away from the power line, and in good health. If one has been marked for removal—a yellow X and/or one of the notices pictured with this article—call the hotline above and tell them it can’t be removed. Be as specific as you can about where the tree is—your address or a mile marker near it on the road.
Currently, no work should be moving forward within riparian or sandhill zones. Work is marked but should not yet proceed and the marked work plan may be changed. They are in the process of talking with county and Fish and Game about these zones. A PG&E biologist is physically walking all the zones to examine them. If you work see them staging or working in a riparian or sandhill zone, immediately escalate to PG&E.
They are not considering any whether tree removals may cause damage to private or public property because of erosion. If you have a concern about that, it’s up to you to escalate it with the relevant authorities.
The Valley Women’s Club has also been active in pursuing answers from PG&E. They’ve posted several pieces on their website: www.valleywomensclub.org
Mr. Wiesner said at a November 1 town hall meeting with supervisor McPherson and other county officials, that residents can contact the public works department if they feel tree removals would cause road erosion. Again, they need an address or mile mark and street name if you want to lodge a complaint.
Finally, PG&E told the Bulletin that it’s not a bad idea to take pictures of the area where the crew is working on your property. If they do any damage, document that too. Even if the contractor tells you they won’t cover the damage, PG&E might. You can make a claim online at www.pge.com/claims, or call 1-800-973-4548.