of 3.5 hours, on a line with a history of nine faults in a 24-year period. Multiple faults on TL 637 on a single day during a Red Flag Warning should have been of more concern to SDG&E than the threat of the Harris Fire to the Southwest Powerlink. Additionally, while SDG&E’s recloser policy was industry practice, it was unreasonable for SDG&E to allow 6.5 hours to elapse between the initial fault at 8:53 a.m. on TL 637 and the de-energizing of TL 637 at 3:27 p.m. As to the Guejito Fire, SDG&E cannot just point to its Corrective Maintenance Program to show it fulfilled its duty to be a reasonable and prudent manager. SDG&E did not utilize good utility practice when it failed to discover the 3.3-foot clearance violation after conducting what it purported to be thorough patrol and visual inspections prior to October 22, 2007. And although the record shows SDG&E completed inspections prior to the Guejito Fire ignition, it is unreasonable for six years to have elapsed without finding or addressing the clearance violation between the SDG&E overhead conductor and the Cox line. As for the Rice Fire, SDG&E fails to explain why it ignored its own contractor’s recommendation to trim FF1090 within 0 to 3 months of Davey’s July 2007 inspection. Furthermore, SDG&E’s utilization of its Vegetation Management Program does not absolve SDG&E of its responsibility to act reasonably in light of specific information. Because SDG&E had labeled FF1090 as a fast grower, SDG&E should have trimmed FF1090 before October 22, 2007. Finally, even if we were to find SDG&E’s operations reasonable under the circumstances, SDG&E cannot use the wind and weather conditions of October 2007 to mitigate SDG&E’s failure to operate as reasonable and prudent manager. SDG&E’s witnesses fail to accurately present the wind and weather conditions in October 2007. Moreover, SDG&E does not prove that the Witch, Guejito and Rice Wildfire were due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond SDG&E’s control.
of 3.5 hours, on a line with a history of nine faults in a 24-year period. Multiple faults on TL 637 on a single day during a Red Flag Warning should have been of more concern to SDG&E than the threat of the Harris Fire to the Southwest Powerlink. Additionally, while SDG&E’s recloser policy was industry practice, it was unreasonable for SDG&E to allow 6.5 hours to elapse between the initial fault at 8:53 a.m. on TL 637 and the de-energizing of TL 637 at 3:27 p.m. As to the Guejito Fire, SDG&E cannot just point to its Corrective Maintenance Program to show it fulfilled its duty to be a reasonable and prudent manager. SDG&E did not utilize good utility practice when it failed to discover the 3.3-foot clearance violation after conducting what it purported to be thorough patrol and visual inspections prior to October 22, 2007. And although the record shows SDG&E completed inspections prior to the Guejito Fire ignition, it is unreasonable for six years to have elapsed without finding or addressing the clearance violation between the SDG&E overhead conductor and the Cox line. As for the Rice Fire, SDG&E fails to explain why it ignored its own contractor’s recommendation to trim FF1090 within 0 to 3 months of Davey’s July 2007 inspection. Furthermore, SDG&E’s utilization of its Vegetation Management Program does not absolve SDG&E of its responsibility to act reasonably in light of specific information. Because SDG&E had labeled FF1090 as a fast grower, SDG&E should have trimmed FF1090 before October 22, 2007. Finally, even if we were to find SDG&E’s operations reasonable under the circumstances, SDG&E cannot use the wind and weather conditions of October 2007 to mitigate SDG&E’s failure to operate as reasonable and prudent manager. SDG&E’s witnesses fail to accurately present the wind and weather conditions in October 2007. Moreover, SDG&E does not prove that the Witch, Guejito and Rice Wildfire were due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond SDG&E’s control.
196872312.docx