case demonstrates the challenge of applying a prudency standard, which requires us to consider in the aggregate whether SDG&E acted reasonably and make what we consider to be a binary choice whether SDG&E should be able to recover all or none of the costs. The ability to do a more nuanced assessment of fault could be a helpful regulatory tool and we respectfully ask the legislature to consider this issue. Despite the concerns regarding the Witch fire identified in this concurrence, we defer to the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), because as the finders of fact in this proceeding, they are situated best to make factual determinations. Indeed the record in this case supports the outcome of this decision. Legal Liability of a Utility Related to Wildfires In this case SDG&E assumed the legal principle of inverse condemnation applied to torts claims in this matter and settled claims by the public before submitting an application to the Commission. In its application, the SDG&E cites California Courts of Appeal cases addressing utility legal liability in the context of other types of private property loss. SDG&E contends a court noted it could be appropriate to apply the legal principle of inverse condemnation to utilities in some instances. The California Public Utilities Code requires the Commission to subject applications for recovery of cost by investor owned utilities to a reasonableness review, which is not true for publicly owned utilities. If the preponderance of the evidence shows that the utility acted prudently, the Commission will allow the utility to recover costs from the ratepayers. However in this instance, the Commission determined the actions of SDG&E were imprudent based on the
case demonstrates the challenge of applying a prudency standard, which requires us to consider in the aggregate whether SDG&E acted reasonably and make what we consider to be a binary choice whether SDG&E should be able to recover all or none of the costs. The ability to do a more nuanced assessment of fault could be a helpful regulatory tool and we respectfully ask the legislature to consider this issue. Despite the concerns regarding the Witch fire identified in this concurrence, we defer to the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), because as the finders of fact in this proceeding, they are situated best to make factual determinations. Indeed the record in this case supports the outcome of this decision. Legal Liability of a Utility Related to Wildfires In this case SDG&E assumed the legal principle of inverse condemnation applied to torts claims in this matter and settled claims by the public before submitting an application to the Commission. In its application, the SDG&E cites California Courts of Appeal cases addressing utility legal liability in the context of other types of private property loss. SDG&E contends a court noted it could be appropriate to apply the legal principle of inverse condemnation to utilities in some instances. The California Public Utilities Code requires the Commission to subject applications for recovery of cost by investor owned utilities to a reasonableness review, which is not true for publicly owned utilities. If the preponderance of the evidence shows that the utility acted prudently, the Commission will allow the utility to recover costs from the ratepayers. However in this instance, the Commission determined the actions of SDG&E were imprudent based on the
202420814.docx