SCE does not expressly admit that it is responsible for “ensuring” contractor safety. But because the Settlement Agreement is a compromise of the parties’ positions to avoid a lengthy litigation, we accept SCE’s general admissions of the underlying facts to be adequate here instead of insisting express admissions that it is responsible for “ensuring” contractor safety or finding that SCE’s conduct related to this incident violated specific laws, Commission decisions or orders. We however remind SCE that nothing in this Settlement Agreement relieves SCE from its safety responsibilities imposed on it by law or Commission rules, orders or decisions. This includes SCE’s long standing duties under Snyder v. Southern California Edison Company, which prohibits it from delegating to an independent contractor responsibility for compliance with Commission safety rules and regulations governing activities that are a necessary part of its business as an owner and operator of utility facilities. 2.4. Miscellaneous Issues and Terms The SED Report claimed that SCE “refused” to provide ESRB its Investigation Report and a list of all documents SCE reviewed in its own investigation of the incident, under a claim of attorney-client privilege. SED recommended that: SCE should provide SED its internal investigation report and all other information for which it has claimed attorney-client privileges, subject to appropriate protection for any confidential information. SCE acknowledges that it is entitled to assert claims of privilege and work product, but such claims could not and would not prevent SED from seeking and acquiring factual information regarding the incident from SCE. During the discovery phase of this proceeding, the Settling Parties resolved this issue. SED agreed that in lieu of its demand for SCE’s Investigation
SCE does not expressly admit that it is responsible for “ensuring” contractor safety. But because the Settlement Agreement is a compromise of the parties’ positions to avoid a lengthy litigation, we accept SCE’s general admissions of the underlying facts to be adequate here instead of insisting express admissions that it is responsible for “ensuring” contractor safety or finding that SCE’s conduct related to this incident violated specific laws, Commission decisions or orders. We however remind SCE that nothing in this Settlement Agreement relieves SCE from its safety responsibilities imposed on it by law or Commission rules, orders or decisions. This includes SCE’s long standing duties under Snyder v. Southern California Edison Company, which prohibits it from delegating to an independent contractor responsibility for compliance with Commission safety rules and regulations governing activities that are a necessary part of its business as an owner and operator of utility facilities. 2.4. Miscellaneous Issues and Terms The SED Report claimed that SCE “refused” to provide ESRB its Investigation Report and a list of all documents SCE reviewed in its own investigation of the incident, under a claim of attorney-client privilege. SED recommended that: SCE should provide SED its internal investigation report and all other information for which it has claimed attorney-client privileges, subject to appropriate protection for any confidential information. SCE acknowledges that it is entitled to assert claims of privilege and work product, but such claims could not and would not prevent SED from seeking and acquiring factual information regarding the incident from SCE. During the discovery phase of this proceeding, the Settling Parties resolved this issue. SED agreed that in lieu of its demand for SCE’s Investigation
191067380.docx