WHILE ALL THE TOPICS IT IN THIS
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE THAT WE'RE
STUDYING HAVE OPPOSING
VIEWPOINTS WE KNOW THAT.
NONE CARRY MORE EMOTION THAN THE
TOPIC OFREFORMING UTILITY
LIABILITY LAWS.
THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S HEARING
IS TO THOROUGHLY AIR ALL POINTS
OF VIEW. TO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL
CONCEPTS INVOLVED.
IN THE RAMIFICATIONS A CHANGING
ANY LEGAL STANDARDS OF
LIABILITY.
I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID
ABOUT MY GOALS AND STANDARDS FOR
MEASURING ANY POLICY WE CONSIDER
[inaudible]
FIRST. TO PREVENT FUTURE WILD
FIRES FROM CLAIMING NEW VICTIMS.
AND FIGHT FOR THE VICTIMS.
OF LAST YEAR'S WILDFIRES.
SECOND TO PREVENT RATEPAYERS AND
TAXPAYERS.
FROM BEARING UNDUE COSTS.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE MEMBERS OF
THIS CONFERENCE COMMITTEE INTEND
TO PROVIDE A SAFE HARBOR FROM
LIABILITY FOR UTILITIES.
THAT ACT IRRESPONSIBLY.
I ALSO BELIEVE.
THAT ANY ACTION WE TAKE ON THE
SUBJECT OF LIABILITY.
SHOULD NOT DIS INCENTIVIZE
UTILITIES. FOR MAKING MAXIMUM
EFFORT INVESTMENT TO MAINTAIN
AND OPERATE THEIR ELECTRICAL
GRID INFRASTRUCTURE.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THERE SHOULD
BE NO SAFE CORNER FOR LAXITY ON
PART OF THE UTILITY AND NOTHING.
ON THE TABLE THAT WOULD CHANGE
LIABILITY. FOR LAST YEAR'S
WILDFIRES.
AT THE SAME TIME.
I BELIEVE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON
THIS COMMITTEE. TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT HOW.
THE SO CALLED NEW NORMAL.
DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE MAY CREATE
EXTREME CONDITIONS.
AND HOW THOSE CONDITIONS MAY
DISRUPT ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
EVEN WITH APPROPRIATE GREG
HARDENING.
I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE
PRODUCT TO THIS CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE.
HELPS AVOID FIRES AND HOLDS BAD
ACTORS ACCOUNTABLE.
WHILE PROTECTING THE LONG TERM
INTEREST.
OF RATEPAYERS.
BEFORE I TURN OVER MY CO CHAIR
--
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN.
WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE
GONNA FOLLOW THE PATTERN OF THE
LAST FEW --
COUPLE HEARINGS.
AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE FOR ALL THE
DIFFERENT SPEAKERS FIVE MINUTES.
I WHERE EACH EACH SPEAKER ON
EACH PANEL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO
DISCUSS THAT.
THE ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT
THEM WELL AND THOSE PANELS ARE
DONE WE WILL --
HAVE I WILL HAVE THAT I WILL
HAVE THE MEMBERS --
ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY MAY.
I HAVE.
ALSO GET READY ON PUBLIC COMMENT
IT IS OUR INTENTION THIS IS WHY
WE'RE HAVING SO MANY WE'VE HEARD
SO IT'S OFFERED NO WE'VE GOT.
THIS IS JUST TOO LITTLE TOO
LATE.
AYE WE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THIS IN
THREE AND A HALF FOUR WEEKS I
WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW WITH SIX
OR SEVEN COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
THIS WILL BE THE MOST DISCUSSED
DEBATED BILL.
OF ANY OF THE PROBABLY TWENTY
FIVE UNDER BILLS THAT WERE
INTRODUCED AT THE BEGINNING OF
THIS YEAR.
SO MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT AT THIS
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE I TALK TO
EVERY SINGLE MEMBER IS
INTERESTED IN TRANSPARENCY. TO
MAKE SURE THAT TO EVERYBODY GETS
HURT.
AND SO IN THAT VEIN ON EVERYBODY
BEING HEARD A PUBLIC COMMENT
WE'VE SEEN A TREND WHERE THIS --
I WOULD RESPECT EVERYBODY'S TIME
MY FELLOW MEMBERS COLLEAGUES BUT
ALSO EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE.
IDEA IN THIS HEARING ROOM SO IF
YOU HEARD.
EVERYDAY YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE.
A PUBLIC SPEAKING WHEN WE COME
TO THE END OF IT.
IF YOU'VE HEARD THE SAME THING
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PLEASE
ASSOCIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
WITH THE PERSON.
DODD WHO SAID THEM BEFORE YOU
AND LET'S MOVE ON WE WE
UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU MAY OR MAY
NOT BE JUST BY THAT COMMENT
ALONE.
IT I THINK ALSO THAT --
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
COMMENTS AND PUBLIC COMMENT.
ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE TOPIC
WANTED IT TOPICS ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
BEFORE TURN OVER A HAVE A
QUESTION HERE CENTER JUST TO AND
THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBMITTING A
LETTER TO THE PUBLIC IF YOU
CONNECT YOU SENATOR WE WILL TAKE
ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS.
THEY CAN BE PAGES AND PAGES OF
PAGES ALL OF THE WRITTEN
COMMENTS --
WE ARE WE WILL ACCEPT.
I SO WITH THAT --
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLD.
CO CHAIR.
I THINK YOU I WILL JUST
ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE TOUCH
HERE'S BECAUSE OF ITS.
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AMPLE
TIME TO TO HEAR THE
PRESENTATIONS AND DOWN JUST TO
UNDERSCORE THAT WE ARE DEALING
WITH A NEW DYNAMIC AND CLIMATE
CHANGE IS SORT OF CREATING A NEW
BATH.
BACKDROP FOR US TO EVALUATE OF
THESE INCREDIBLE A CATASTROPHIC
EVENTS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE SO
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE
PRESENTATIONS TODAY AND AND THE
CAN THE QUEUE IN A FROM THE
THINGS FROM THE PUBLIC.
THANK YOU.
VERY GOOD SO NOW WILL HAVE THE
PRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL AYE JAMES M. RALPH G.
FOR POLICY LEGAL AFFAIRS OFFICE
THE CPUC PRESIDENT MICHAEL
PICKER.
I SEE YOU I DREW THE SHORT
STRAW.
IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.
THANK YOU IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU
HERE SERIOUSLY.
GOOD MORNING COMMITTEE CHAIRS
DOT IN HOLDEN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
I'M JAMES RALPH CHIEF A POLICY
IN LEGAL AFFAIRS FOR CPUC
PRESIDENT MICHAEL PICKER.
THIS CAN THE COMMISSION HAS A
BUSINESS MEAN SEPSIS GO THIS
MORNING SO PRESENT PICKERS
UNABLE TO ATTEND TODAY'S
HEARING.
BUT IS AN HONOR TO APPEAR TODAY
AND DISCUSS TODAY'S TOPIC.
PLEASE LET ME MAKE MY OBLIGATORY
DISCLAIMERS I CANNOT SPEAK FOR
THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS OF THE
CPU SEE.
I CAN'T DISCUSS ANY OPEN
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CQC.
HOWEVER I WILL FIRST PROVIDE A
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCTOR
AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
SECOND DESCRIPTION THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL AND THIRD
I'LL CLOSE MY REMARKS BY
DISCUSSING THE SENSIBLE BALANCE
STRUCK BY THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL.
I BELIEVE MICHAEL WORE A
PROVIDED A GOOD SUMMARY OF
INVERSE CONDEMNATION AT LAST
WEEK'S HEARING.
I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT HIS
COMMENTS.
BUT BRIEFLY PROVIDE CONTEXT
INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
IS A JUDICIAL DOCTRINE WHICH
SINCE NINETEEN SIXTY FIVE THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS
HELD IS ROOTED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF
ARTICLE ONE SECTION.
NINETEEN OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
CONSTITUTION.
UNDER THE INVERSE CONDEMNATION
DOCTRINE COURTS HOLD THE
GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
DAMAGE CAUSED BY VICE ACTIONS
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT ACTOR.
ACTED REASONABLY OR FALL LAW.
THIS IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO
STRICT LIABILITY.
PRINT SOME CASES THE CALIFORNIA
COURTS OF APPEAL APPLY THE
DOCTRINE OF INVERSE CONDEMNATION
TO INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES.
SO POWER LINES IN COMPLIANCE BUT
TREE LIMB FALLS ON IT.
AND CAUSES A FIRE THE UTILITIES
STILL RESPONSIBLE.
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS
DELIBERATELY CHOSEN NOT USE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
NGUYEN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S
BECAUSE IMPROPER DAMAGE INSTEAD
THE COURT HAS ESTABLISHED A
SPECIAL REASONABLENESS TEST TO
DETERMINE LIABILITY IN THOSE
INSTANCES.
IN THOSE CASES THE REALLY THE
REASON ONUS OF FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT'S ACTIONS.
A OUR IS DETERMINED.
BY THE COURT WAYNE A NUMBER OF
FACTORS INCLUDING THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT.
THE PUBLIC GAINS FROM THE FLOOD
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRIVATE
DAMAGES THAT RESULTED FROM THEIR
ACTIONS.
THIS IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS
A BELL AIR LAUGHLIN TEST.
THE COMMUNITIES NEAR FLOOD
CONTROL.
INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFIT FROM
INFRASTRUCTURE.
WATER SUPPLY IRRIGATION AND
FLOOD CONTROL TO NAME A FEW
BENEFITS.
HOWEVER THE PROVISION OF THESE
SERVICES IS INHERENTLY
DANGEROUS.
SO THE COURT DECIDED IT WAS
APPROPRIATE TO WEIGH THE
BENEFITS AND THE RISK OF
INFRASTRUCTURE.
SIMILAR TO FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT'S CALIFORNIA REALIZE
ELECTRICITY TO POWER ITS ECONOMY
AND COMMUNITIES.
BECAUSE WHAT YOU SEE IS AN
ESSENTIAL SERVICE CALIFORNIA
REQUIRES ITS INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES TO SERVE LITERACY TO
ALL PEOPLE UNTIL THE SERVICE
TERRITORY.
THE MODERN COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
IS ALSO DEPENDENT.
ON THIS NETWORK.
THE TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION WHAT TRICITY IS
INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.
THE SEVERITY THE DANGER.
IT'S ONLY HIGH IN BY CLIMATE
CHANGE WITH STORMS INCREASING
FREQUENCY BECKONED TOPPLE POLLS
AND SNAPPED POWERLINES.
THIS TREND CAN INCREASE THE RISK
OF CATASTROPHIC EVENTS.
BECAUSE BY WHAT YOUR
TRANSMISSION OR COMPOUND
CONSEQUENCES.
ONCE AN EVENT HAS OCCURRED.
HOLDING UTILITIES RECOUP
RESPONSIBLE REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THEY ACTED NEGLIGENTLY.
OR FALL LAWS.
IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF
CALIFORNIA RATEPAYERS.
THE APPLICATION STRICT
LIABILITY.
LEADS TO LOWER CREDIT RATING FOR
UTILITIES.
WHICH IN TURN LEAD TO HIGHER
COSTS OF ARMENIAN HIGHER RATES
FOR CALIFORNIANS.
IT IS LSO MADE IT CHALLENGING
FOR UTILITIES OBTAIN INSURANCE.
IF UTILITIES CANNOT INSURE ORDER
IF INSURANCE IS INCREDIBLY
EXPENSIVE ELITES HIGHER COST
RATEPAYERS.
LASTLY BUT MAKING U. CHILLY A
FINANCIAL BACKSTOPS FOR ALL
DAMAGES EVEN TO UTILITY NOT.
VIOLATE A RULE WE RUN THE RISK
OF UTILITY BECOMING FINANCIALLY
UNSTABLE.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
ADDRESSES THESE PROBLEMS.
THE PROPOSAL HOLD UTILITIES BOTH
INVESTOR AND PUBLICLY OWNED.
ACCOUNTABLE IF UTILITIES OUT
NEVER NEGLIGENTLY OR VIOLATE THE
LAW [inaudible]
HOWEVER.
IF UTILITIES FALL THE LAW ENACT
WITHIN REASON.
THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES JUDGES A
FRAMEWORK TO USE WHEN
DETERMINING LIABILITY. FOR
WILDFIRES SIMILAR TO FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSAL AS A JUDGE WAY FIVE
FACTORS.
FIRST THE UTILITIES CONDUCT
SECOND THE NATURE OF THE HARM TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THIRD WHETHER UTILITY COMPLIED
WITH THE LAW ON PC REGULATIONS.
SORTS THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM
BECAUSE THE HARM.
AND WHETHER SAFER ALTERNATIVE
WAS AVAILABLE.
AND FIFTH OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE FIRE.
MICHAEL WERE TESTIFIED LAST
WEEK'S DOES CONSTITUTIONAL FOR
THE LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT ITS
FRAMEWORK.
I AGREE WITH HIS ASSESSMENT.
BOLTON WITHOUT THE QUESTION
WHICH WILL LIKELY BE DECIDED BY
A COURT.
IS IMPORTANCE CAN'T TO CONNECT
THE DOTS BETWEEN APPLICATION OF
INVERSE CONDEMNATION THE COURTS
AND COST RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS AT
THE COMMISSION.
AND I KNOW THAT I'M AT MY FIVE
MINUTE MARK WHILE I'M JUST
WRAPPING THIS UP LET LET ME MAKE
MYSELF CLEAR EACH SIDE THIS THIS
HEARING TODAY IS ON THE THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL AND YOU'VE
GOT.
THE TIME YOU NEED TO TO GET
THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION TAKE
BANK BAKER CENTER.
IS IMPORTANCE CONNECT THE DOTS
BETWEEN APPLICATION INVERSE
CONDEMNATION IN THE COURTS AND
THE COST RECOVERY PROCEEDING.
AT THE COMMISSION.
IF UTILITY CREWS ALIVE BELIEVE
THE COURTS BILL FIRST INVOKE ANY
APPLICABLE INSURANCE POLICIES TO
COVER THAT LIABILITY.
THE CHILLY THEN MAY FILE FOR
COST RECOVERY AT THE COMMISSION
FOR ANY REMAINING LIABILITIES.
AND COST RECOVERY PROCEEDING THE
CPC ABOUT WHICH THE CONDUCTIVITY
LD UNDER REASONABLE STANDARD OR
THE PRUDENT MANAGER STANDARDS
I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE READ
ABOUT.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL DOES NOT
CHANGE THAT PROCESS THAT HAS
MANY BENEFITS.
FIRST IT REDUCES THE SIZE OF A
LIABILITY WHICH OCCURS IN COURT
AND EVENTUALLY GOES IN THE
RATES.
BY NT HOLDING UTILITIES
ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY FALL THE
LAW.
SECOND INSURANCE COMPANIES MAY
BE MORE INCLINED TO ENSURE
UTILITIES IF UTILITY IS NOT
STRICTLY LIABLE.
NGUYEN.
WHICH REDUCES FUTURE
LIABILITIES.
AND LASTLY IT SHOULD ALSO LEADER
IMPROVE CREDIT SCORES TO
UTILITIES AND LOWER THE COST OF
BORROWING.
WHICH IN THE END RESULTS IN
LOWER RATES.
IN CLOSING THERE ARE NO EASY
SOLUTIONS HERE.
HOWEVER IN A SIMILAR SITUATION
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
A FIRM REALLY DECIDED TO PLAY A
REASON THIS TEST.
AS AN EXCEPTION TO INVERSE
CONDEMNATION.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FALLS
ELITE OF COURT.
AND MAINTAINS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
UTILITIES.
WHEN THEY ARE NEGLIGENT AND DOES
NOT CREATE A SAFE HARBOR?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS
AFTERNOON I'M AVAILABLE FOR YOUR
QUESTIONS [inaudible]
I'M.
THUNDERSTONE THANK YOU --
MISTER.
PRESIDENT.
A COUPLE QUESTIONS --
IN A YOU'RE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
--
COMPARING FLOOD DAMAGE TO TO
FIRE DAMAGE --
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT --
WHEN WERE?
BILL HAVING HEAVY RAINS AND AND
WE HAVE CONVEYANCES SO OUR
RIVERS AND RESERVOIRS SET.
OF THE FLOODING DAMAGE CAN BE
READILY PREDICT --
WE HAVE A LOT OF SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS YOU KNOW IF
WE HAVE HEAVY SNOWPACK WE KNOW
EXACTLY HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO
COME INTO A RESERVE FORCE HOW
MUCH OF A NEWBORN OR RIVERS
WERE.
WILDFIRES IS COMPLETELY
UNPREDICTABLE WE DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO
START HOW THEY'RE GONNA START.
AND SO YOU KNOW I THINK THAT
THIS IS THAT KIND OF GET THE
LIABILITY ISSUES OCCUR THERE NOT
THE SAME TYPE THE LIABILITIES.
A WITH REGARD TO YOU KNOW --
UTILITIES AND WATER WATER COME
CONVEYORS.
BUT CENTER STONE I THINK IT'S AN
EXCELLENT QUESTION --
I AGREE THAT'S IMPORTANT OR
CLOSELY AT WHETHER OR NOT --
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S AND
THIS THE INFRASTRUCTURE THE DAY
THAT THEY HAVE IS SIMILAR TO
UTILITIES --
ULTIMATELY --
I'M I CAN'T TESTIFY AS TO HOW
THE FREQUENCY FLOODS AND THE
NATURE OF FLOODS IT'S BEYOND MY
KNOWLEDGE.
I I DO KNOW THOUGH THAT
COMMUNITIES BENEFIT FROM THE
INFRASTRUCTURE FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT'S AND IT PROVIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE
COMMUNITIES TO FLOURISH.
AND THE COMMUNITIES RELY ON THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND I KNOW THAT
THAT'S THE SAME CASE WITH YOU
TILT ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
AND THE BENEFITS THAT THE
COMMUNITIES CAME FROM THOSE
UTILITIES --
IS SIMILAR.
AND NO IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION I CAN'T
SPEAK. TO TO THAT THE COMPARISON
BETWEEN FLATTENED AND WILDFIRES
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR TEMPLE AND
LASTLY.
YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING CALLED
THE BEL AIR LA CLEAR TEST IS
THAT IS THAT A SUBTLE LAW IS
THAT -- A
DESCRIPTION OF A LEGAL
PROCEEDING WHAT EXACTLY IS THAT
NOWHERE IS A FOUND.
BUT THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION SIR.
ON THE BELLAIRE CASE IS THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE
WHICH HELD THAT FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICTS WILL BE --
HELL TO DO DIFFERENT TYPE OF I
HAVE -- THE
CASE SITE FOR THAT AND I CAN TRY
THAT YOUR STAFF IF YOU'D LIKE.
BUT THEN --
LAUGHLIN IS THE CASE THAT
FOLLOWED THAT CASE AND FURTHER
DEVELOPED THE JURISPRUDENCE ON
THIS ISSUE AND SO THERE'S A
SERIES OF CASES --
PERTAINING TO FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICTS THAT DEVELOPED THE
FACTORS THAT THE COURT SUPPLY
AND THAT'S COMMONLY.
IT COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS
THE BEL AIRE LAUGHLIN TEST OKAY
SO LOSES REFERS TO FLOOD CONTROL
ISSUES SO YOU ADMIT YOU'RE
MAKING THE NEXUS BETWEEN.
THE BELLER LACHLAN TEST TOO OF
LIABILITY FOR FOR WILDFIRES YEAH
AND I I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS
MODELED AFTER THAT TEST.
THAT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
LOOKED AT THE CASE LAW THAT THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
DEVELOPED.
AND MODELED --
THE PROPOSAL THEM TO PUT EXCUSE
ME THAN THE PROPOSAL'S MODELED
AFTER THE FACTORS DEVELOPED BY
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
AND THE IT A CLOSELY RESEMBLE.
THE THE THE FACTORS OF COURSE
TAKING ACCOUNT THAT UTILITIES AS
YOU MENTION ARE DIFFERENT.
IN SOME RESPECTS THAN FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT'S CERTS NOT
VERBATIM.
RESHAPE.
IF YOU CENTER JACKSON
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS
THAT WE SHOULD BE APPLYING THE
FLOOD CONTROL RULES SIMILARLY TO
THE ELECTRICAL GRID.
RATHER THAN HAVE THE STRICT
LIABILITY PROVISIONS THAT EXIST
TODAY SAID CORRECT.
YES I BELIEVE THAT --
SUMMARIZES THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL AND THE IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN THOUGH THE THE FLOOD A
A CAN THE FLOOD CONTROL CONT
BECAUSE IT OF ALL FROM UPPER
RIPARIAN LAND ISSUE SOMETHING
VERY DIFFERENT.
THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE WITH THE UTILITIES IS NOT
CORRECT.
WELL --
UPPER RIPARIAN WATER ISSUES I
AGREE DIFFERENT THAN WILDFIRES
BUT I THINK THEY'RE SIMILAR IN
WHICH CLIMATE CHANGE HAS LEAD --
TO INCREASE FLOODING IN SOME
AREAS AND INCREASE WILDFIRE
FIRES IN OTHER AREAS.
BUT THE BASIS OF THE LAW THE
REASON FOR THE LAW COMES FROM
VERY VERY DIFFERENT PLACE.
BUT THAT'S CORRECT IT IT'S AN
OLDER --
BODY OF LAW THAT FOCUS ON ALL
THE OLDER FLOOD SHORTAGE AND
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE COURTS
HAVE FLAT OUT REJECTED THE
REASONABLENESS STANDARD BECAUSE
THE PRINCIPLES THAT A FLY
APPLYING THE FLOOD CONTEXT.
DON'T APPLY IN THE ELECTRICAL
CONTEXT -- I
AM NOT SURE WHICH CASE YOU'RE
REFERRING TO I DON'T KNOW IF I
AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT OF
THEM NOT SO PERHAPS OUR NEXT
PANEL COULD ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
BECAUSE REALLY WHAT I SEE YOU
DOING HERE WITH THIS PROPOSAL
SEEMS TO SORT OF CONFLATE. TO
MAKING THEM THE SAME BUT IN FACT
THEY REALLY AREN'T THE SAME AND
SO I HAVE LITTLE DIFFICULTY
APPLYING THIS JUST BECAUSE WE
USE IT -- IN
FLOOD CONTROL ASPECTS THAT
BECAUSE WE USE AT THERE WE
SHOULD USE IT WITH THE
ELECTRICAL.
BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE
SUGGESTING ARE YOU NOT.
WELL LET ME IF I MAY UM --
RESPOND BRIEFLY TO THAT AND I
THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
POINT I'M GLAD YOU RAISED IT --
THIS IS SENATOR --
THE COURTS AND DEVELOPING A
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CASES HAD
EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC
POLICY BENEFITS THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDED AND I
NAME A COUPLE THEN --
HERE -- WE
HAVE A SIMILAR SITUATION --
WHERE THERE'S INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT HAS INHERENT RISK THE SAME
WAY THAT FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS
HAVE INHERENT RISK LEVEES FOR
EXAMPLE THERE'S INHERENT RISK
WITH THE LEVY --
NEAR A COMMUNITY.
AND THE CORD UNIFIED PUBLIC
POLICY REASONS FOR WHY IT'S A
PROBLEM TO HOLD --
THE THE INFRASTRUCTURE
ASSOCIATED WITH FLIGHT CONTROL
DISTRICTS STRICTLY LIABLE
BECAUSE IT WILL PREVENT DICKS
UNITS FROM BENEFITING FROM ALL
THE BENEFITS.
AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT'S
THE SAME AS A WAITRESS DE --
INFRASTRUCTURE BY INSANE AND IT
IS SIMILAR.
SOMEONE TO CLEAR I'M NOT TRYING
TO CONFLATE I'M JUST TRYING TO
SAY THAT THEY'RE SIMILAR AND I
THINK THE CASE IS PACKED BILL
VERSUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON.
DIDN'T WELL I I GUESS ON
TROUBLED BY.
THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
COMPARE THE TWO IS APPLES TO
APPLES WHEN THEY'RE REALLY NOT.
SO IF THERE'S A JUSTIFICATION
WHY WE SHOULD BE APPLYING THOSE
STANDARDS IT SEEMS TO ME IT
SHOULD BE.
BASED ON THE UNIQUENESS OF ARE
UTILITY CIRCUMSTANCES NOT TRYING
TO SAY WELL IF WE DO IT FOR
FLOOD CONTROL WE SHOULD BE ABLE
TO DO IT.
HERE NIGHT I'D LIKE TO HAVE A
BET IF I IF YOU WILL A BETTER
REASON WHY --
THAT THE TWO ARE CONNECTED OR
SHOULD BE CONNECTED NOT THEY'RE
NOT CONNECTED NOW THE COURTS TO
MAKE CLEAR THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED
NOW -- SO --
A I'M TROUBLED BY THAT ANALOGY
BUT I WOULD LIKE --
YOU MENTIONED THE FIVE
REQUIREMENTS THE FIVE CONDITIONS
AND ONE OF THEM IS THAT THEY
OPERATE IN A REASONABLY PRUDENT
MANNER.
I THINK BASED UPON THE THE
DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD SO FAR
IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS --
THE INMATES ARE ESSENTIALLY%
RUNNING THE ASYLUM THAT THERE
BEEN NO STANDARDS SET BY ANYBODY
AS TO WHAT IS REASONABLENESS.
ALSO BEFORE WE DECIDE SOMEONE'S
ACTING REASONABLE WE HAVE TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT REACH
REASONABLENESS WOULD BE IN THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH IS OF CONCERN
TO ME WHY WERE TALKING ABOUT
RICK.
LIMITING LIABILITY WHEN WE HAVE
NEWMAN TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE
UTILITY COMPANY SHOULD BE DOING
TO EVEN BE ABLE TO COME. TO A
BEFORE THE COURTS OR SOMEONE AND
SAY STILL DEFINITION P. YOU SEE
SAID THAT THEY'RE WAY BEHIND THE
BAR A EIGHT BALL ON THIS AND
UTILITIES TO FIND.
SAFETY IN RECENT BONUS ACCORDING
TO THE WAY THEY DEFINE IT.
SO HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT
PROBLEM.
BOSE SAID SENATOR I THINK THAT
YOU'VE RAISED AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION AND AT SOME SHOW TOO
AND YOU KNOW.
I APOLOGIZE IF I IF I SAID THE
FIVE SAID THAT REPEATEDLY --
YET I WON ADDRESS BRIEFLY --
AN ISSUE WHICH I THINK IS
COMMONLY DISCUSSED BUT HASN'T
REALLY BEEN ADDRESSED FULLY
HERE.
WHICH IS A NET THERE'S THE
NEGLIGENCE STANDARDS OF THE
SPEAR COURT AND THE JUDGE IS
GONNA APPLY THAT STANDARD AND
THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT CHANGE
THAT STANDARD IN ANYWAY --
YEAH ONE OF THE FACTORS OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS UTILITIES
CONDUCT WHICH IS I BELIEVE WHAT
YOU'RE REFERENCING --
REGARDLESS OF HOW THE
LIABILITIES ACCRUED AT THE
COURTS.
EVENTUALLY.
NEWS UTILITY MAY SEE COST
RECOVERY AT THE COMMISSION.
AND THEIR WE'VE FLY RESOURCE
CENTER.
WHICH IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS
A PERIMETER STANDARD.
AND THOSE ARE OFTEN CONFLATED
BUT DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT
STANDARDS APPLIED BY DIFFERENT
BODIES [inaudible]
AND I HAVE NOT SHORT ANSWER
QUESTION BY ONE JUST PRIDE THAT
CLARITY --
TO COMMITTEE.
WELL THAT IS PART OF THE
QUESTION IS SENATORS.
TO WHOSE STANDARD WE GONNA USE
RIGHT NOW THERE AREN'T ANY
STANDARDS WE HAVE --
SAN DIEGO GAS ELECTRIC THEY'VE
THEY'VE DETERMINE THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES ARE APPEAR --
PEACHY ANY STANDARDS AND I'M
TOLD THERE'S NO ONE HERE TODAY
FROM PEACHY NEEDS TO SPEAK WHICH
IS KIND DISAPPOINTING.
BUT THEIR STANDARDS A HERE AND
EDISON STANDARDS APPARENTLY ARE
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE WHO
STOOD I MEAN.
E. THAT'S PART OF WHY WE HAVE
EARLY CARE ESSENTIALLY WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING IS WELL WE SHOULD
CARE WE SHOULD DETERMINE THIS ON
THE BASIS OF NEGLIGENCE.
BUT WHO'S TO DECIDE AT THIS
POINT WITHOUT ANY STANDARDS WHAT
IS AND ISN'T NEGLIGENT CONDUCT.
WELL I USE ON TUESDAY WE RECEIVE
TESTIMONY REGARDING ANOTHER
SECTION GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
WHICH IS THE WHILE FIRE
MITIGATION PLANS --
I IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF MY
TESTIMONY DISCUSS THOSE
STANDARDS AND THEIR QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHO SHOULD SET THE
STANDARDS.
BUT YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
FACT THAT THOSE STANDARDS THAT
ARE ALSO PART OF GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT CALLS FOR
INCREASE AT FIRST INCREASE
EVALUATION WHETHER NOT UTILITY
IS COMPLYING WITH THEM.
AND SECOND INCREASE ENFORCEMENT
IF THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH
THEM SO DO ONE HIGHLY THAT'S
ALSO PART OF THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL BUT NOT THE NATURE OF
MY COMMENTS I COULD ASK FOR THE
NEXT TEN HOURS BUT I'VE BEEN
TOLD I'VE.
DONE WITH MY TIME BUT I THANK
YOU FOR YOUR YOUR TESTIMONY
THANK YOU CENTER HUESO.
THANK YOU ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH
THE A JOINT --
CONCURRENCE ISSUED BY --
THE PRESIDENT --
MICHAEL PICKER AND TO
COMMISSIONER MARTHA GOES MON.
ON DECEMBER OF TWENTY SEVENTEEN
THAT --
PRETTY MUCH DENIED --
TESTY GINNY'S REQUEST.
TO LET RATES THREE COMPENSATE
THEM FOR SOME LOSSES A QUORUM
RELATED TO A WILDFIRE.
YES CENTER.
IN THAT OUR DOCUMENT --
THERE ARE A FEW LINES THAT I
WANT TO JUST KIND OF READ IF
IT'S OKAY MISTER CHAIR.
JUST TO ASK IN TERMS OF WHETHER.
YOU UNDERSTAND --
SPECIFICALLY WHAT.
WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE
MAKING REFERENCE TO AND WHETHER
THAT PERTAINS?
TO THE GOVERNOR'S RULE ON THE
QUESTION WOULD BE.
IS THE GOVERNOR SATISFYING THE
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
IN HIS --
RECOMMENDATION DOESN'T COVER THE
KIND OF THE BREATH OF WHAT
THEY'RE SEEKING.
FROM THE LEGISLATURE SO IN THE
LETTER.
THEY BOTH SAID WE RESPECTFULLY
URGE THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE.
TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS THE
ISSUES OF LIABILITY CALCULATION
AND COST ALLOCATION AND
INSTANCES WHEN UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE.
HE'S IMPLICATED IN PRIVATE
PROPERTY.
AND THEY GO ON TO SAY THE
ABILITY TO DO A MORE NUANCED
ASSESSMENT A FULL.
COULD BE I HELP FOR REGULATORY
TOOL RESPECTFULLY ASK
LEGISLATURE. TO CONSIDER THE
ISSUE.
AND THEN FINALLY WE WERE IT
RESPECTFULLY URGE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE TO FOR FROM ITALY
ADDRESS THE ISSUES.
OF LIABILITY CALCULATION COST
ALLOCATION INSTANCES.
WHEN YOU TO LIDDY
INFRASTRUCTURES IMPLICATED IN
PRIVATE PROPERTY LOSS
[inaudible]
SO.
WOULD YOU A IS IT.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT.
YES SENATOR --
THAT CONCURRENCE IS.
FROM THE SAN DIEGO WE MY
DECISION EYES YOU MENTIONED AND
IT IDENTIFIES TWO ISSUES AND
I'VE TOUCH BRUTE BRIEFLY ON THEM
I WANNA CLARIFY WILL THAT
FURTHER.
THE FIRST IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LIABILITY THE COURTS.
AND I'D LIKE USE ANALOGY OF A
PIE THAT ONCE THE LIABILITIES
DETERMINED EITHER BY SETTLEMENT
OR BY JUDGMENTS.
YOU HAVE A PIE BEEN SHIRTS IS
GOING TO COVER SOME OF THAT.
BUT THE REMAINING THE REMAINDER
OF THAT PIE GOES PROBABLY. TO
APPLICATION FOR COST RECOVERY AT
THE COMMISSION.
THE DETERMINATION OF ALLOCATION
OF COSTS WHICH IS THE SECOND
PART OF THAT CONCURRENCE IS
ABOUT HOW YOU SLICE OF PIE.
AND SO WE'RE GONNA LOOK FOR WAYS
TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION.
THE FIRST STEP IS REDUCING THE
OVERALL SIZE OF THE PIE.
BECAUSE ONCE A LIABILITY HAS
ACCRUED.
HOUSE TO BE PAID BY SOMEBODY.
JUST BASIC MATH.
AND YOU COULD RIGHT NOW ENTERED
THE EXISTING SITUATION IS EITHER
GOING TO SHAREHOLDERS OR RATE
PAYERS.
THE GOES TO SHAREHOLDERS.
HIS DRAWBACKS TO IT AND LEAD TO
HIGHER COST OF BORROWING.
MAKES IT HARDER TO INSURANCE AND
ULTIMATELY.
THOSE TWO THINGS LEAD TO HIGHER
RATES.
IT GOES TO RATEPAYERS.
OBVIOUSLY THAT MEANS THE RATES
GO UP [inaudible]
AND SO.
THAT'S IS A TWO PART PROBLEM AND
THE FIRST PART INVERSE CONDITION
REFORM AS PROPOSED BY THE
GOVERNOR GOES TO THE CALCULATION
Y. BILLY.
THE SECOND PART IS HOW THE
COMMISSION ALLOCATE COSTS.
AND TO ANSWER QUESTION.
I BELIEVE --
MICHAEL PICKER BELIEVES THAT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL DOES ADDRESS
--
HIS.
COMMENTS NOT CONCURRENCE.
THANK YOU HAVE YOU --
BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE DECISION
BY THE LIL LEG LEDGE COUNCIL
BASICALLY OF THE LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL THAT WAS --
AN OPINION ISSUED JULY FIFTH.
REGARDING A STATUTORY MENDING OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND I THINK IT
GETS TO THE SOME OF THE PIE THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
[inaudible]
AND ARE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
OF THE LETTER THEIR OPINION AS
IT'S THE PIN OPINION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE MAY NOT BY A
STATUTORY MEASURE EITHER AMEND
THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
OR INTERPRET THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION A MATTER THAT
CONFLICTS.
WITH THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
SO WOULD YOU [inaudible]
OF CONSIDER THAT.
A CONFLICT WITH OUR ABILITY TO
FACT KIND OF THE SIZE OF THE PIE
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT
NECESSARILY.
BUT YOU KNOW THE THE ALLOCATION
OF OF OVER.
OR OR ASSIGNING BLAME TO THOSE
SET THAT MAY SHARE BLAME AND AN
INCIDENT THAT.
CAN WE INFLUENCE THE SIZE OF THE
PIE IN ITS ENTIRETY.
SENATOR I BELIEVE MICHAEL WORE
OF ADDRESS THE QUESTION
CONSTITUTIONALITY.
OF THE PROPOSAL AND IN HIS
TESTIMONY LAST WEEK HE SAID THAT
HE THOUGHT IT WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL.
I AGREE IT IS ASSESSMENT --
THE DOCTORATE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION SINCE NINETEEN
SIXTY FIVE HAS BASICALLY BEEN
BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.%
PREVIOUSLY SPACE OFFER COMMENT
COMMON LAW TOWARD PROPERTY LAW
--
AND AND I I I BELIEVE THAT IS
APPROPRIATE AND AND LEGAL --
FOR THIS LEGISLATURE TO ACT AND
I CONSISTENT THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL.
BUT AS I SAID EARLIER THAT
QUESTION WILL LIKELY BE CITED BY
COURT IF THIS PROPOSAL OR
SOMEWHERE ONE BECOMES LAW --
ASSEMBLY MEMBER RACE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
I I TO A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT.
USING FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S.
AND THE STANDARDS USED FOR THEM
AND APPLYING THOSE TO UTILITIES.
SO SOME BASIC QUESTIONS OF FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT.
IS THAT PUBLICLY OWNED ORDERS
BUT OUR DEEP SHAREHOLDERS IN
THAT.
AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER I'M NOT --
AND EXPERIENCE LOOKED FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT'S BUT I CAN'T
SAY THAT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
WOULD APPLY TO BOTH INVESTOR AND
PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITIES.
AGAIN I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE IF
WE HAVE THE THE PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITY COMPANY YOU HAVE CEOS
[inaudible]
IF SHAREHOLDERS YOU HAVE.
GUARANTEED RATES OF RETURN FOR
THE SHAREHOLDERS.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THAT FOR
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.
SO WOULDN'T IT BE YOUR LAST ONE
OF YOUR LAST CMMENT TO SAID
ONCE LIABILITIES DETERMINED.
SOMEONE HOUSE TO PAY.
THAT'S TRUEFOR FOR ANYTHING.
ANYTHING THAT ANY OF US TO
SOMEONE HAS TO PAY.
SO WE HAVE INSURANCE WE'VE
ENOUGH INSURANCE.
AND IF WE DON'T THEN IF IT'S
BEFORE THE OWNERS OF IT THEN WE
HAVE TO KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
AND SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK TWO WAYS
TO PREVENT.
GETTING TO THAT POINT SO YOU
WORK IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE WERE
STARTING AT THE END RATHER THAN
STARTING AT THE BEGINNING.
AND AT THE BEGINNING WE HAVE TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT RESPONSIBILITY
THERE IS TO AVOID GETTING TO
THIS POINT.
SO IT GOES TO THE PREVENTION
GOES TO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
AND AS THE GOOD SENATOR SAID.
WE WERE TAKING CARE OF THEM.
AND WE'RE NOW LOOKING FOR WAYS
TO THE END THAT FIT SUPPORT
CHOICE OF WORDS.
BUT IT IT'S A WORD THAT'S BEING
USED BY MANY WHO CONTACT MY
OFFICE.
ON MANY OR TALKING ABOUT IT
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A BAILOUT.
FOR THE UTILITIES.
THAT ISN'T OUR PURPOSE.
IT ABSOLUTELY IS NOT OUR PURPOSE
WE WANT TO FIND WAYS TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE ARE TAKING CARE OF
THOSE WHO ARE YOU.
RECEIVING THE BENEFIT.
HERE ELECTRICITY IT --
ALL OF THE UTILITIES.
WE ALSO WANT TO BE SURE THAT IF
SOMEONE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO
KEEP AN AREA SAFE KEEP IT FROM.
IGNITING.
BUT THEY DO WHAT THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO.
AND I I PAID.
STILL HAVE NOT HEARD THAT.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT WHAT WE'RE
DOING.
WHAT WE'RE DOING TO MAKE SURE
THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WERE INSTEAD
LOOKING AT THE?
THE TAIL END AND TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW WE PROTECT.
SOMEONE WHO AREN'T ENTITY THAT
HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
RESPONSIBLE FOR MANY OF THE
FIRES.
I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THAT.
BUT VERY SPECIFICALLY HAVING TO
DO WITH THE FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT'S.
DO YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE SPECIFIC
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SALARIES
WHEN IT COMES TO DIVIDENDS WHEN
IT COMES TO RATE OF RETURN. FOR
A UTILITY VERSUS THE FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT.
WELL YOU'RE.
I I THINK YOU'VE.
PUT YOUR FINGER ON IMPORTANT
IMPORTANTISSUE AND I SHARE YOUR
CONCERN AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE
WANTS TO SEE A BAILOUT --
I WOULD NOT CHARACTERIZE THIS IS
BELL OUT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
HOLDS UTILITIES ACCOUNTABLE IF
ACT NEGLIGENTLY.
BUT I THINK IT STRIKES A CAREFUL
BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDING THEM I
CAN'T ACCOUNTABLE ENACT
NEGLIGENTLY.
BUT NOT DONE MAKING THEM THE
BACKSTOP FINANCIALLY FOR ALL
NATURAL DISASTERS --
I AGREE WITH YOUR SECOND POINT
CLEARLY A FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
IS DIFFERENT THAN A LARGE
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY I I THINK
THAT'S VERY CLEAR.
HE DIDN'T IF.
LIST SHARE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT I THAT I ASK YOU IS.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVEN IN THE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND? ONE OF
THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS HAS TO DO
WITH.
THAT.
THE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE.
THE SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR HAD TWO
BANDS UTILITIES.
AND IF WE'RE AT THAT POINT IN
THE HEAT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT THE
INTEREST COMBINATIONS LIKE ON
BECOME TOLD THAT IS PROVEN IS
THAT TRUE.
THAT SURE UNDER INVERSE
CONDEMNATION ON ELM IS
SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE AND IF
THEY'RE FOUND TO BE A
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR OF THE FIRE
THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE FOUND.
STRICTLY LIVE ROOMS ARE CORRECT
--
WELL THEY COULD BE THEY COULD BE
A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE BUT FOR
EXAMPLE --
THEY COULD BE ACOSTA NOT ACTED
NEGLIGENTLY ANYWAY.
SO THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION IS GOOD THAT DID.
INFRASTRUCTURE CAN BE --
PART OF THAT WORK IN THE FIRE
BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN
THAT ACTED NEGLIGENTLY AND THEIR
NUMBER OF OTHER FACTORS OF THE
OTHER JURY INSTRUCTIONS BUT THAT
IS ONE OF THEM.
DOES THE UTILITY HAVE THE RIGHT
TO ASK --
FOR INDEMNIFICATION IF THEY KNOW
THAT SOMEONE ELSE WAS
RESPONSIBLE CAN THEY ALSO TAKE
ACTION AGAINST A THIRD PARTY.
I BELIEVE THE PANELISTS
MUTILATES CAN SPEAK TO THIS
BETTER THAN I CAN BUT IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT FOR EXAMPLE
WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANIES THAT ARE ON THE POLLS.
BUT THEY HAVE INDEMNIFICATION
AGREEMENTS BUT THAT'S SUBJECT TO
VERIFICATION WOULD BE HAPPY TO
FOLLOW AT YOUR OFFICE ON THAT
AND TO CONFIRM THAT.
AND THE REASON IT'S
INDEMNIFICATION IS BECAUSE I
ASSUME.
THAT THEY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PARTY IS.
SO THAT'S A CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP AND IF THEY HAVE A
CONTRACT AND THAT PERSON WAS
WITH THAT ENTITY RECEIPT WAS
RESPONSIBLE.
THEY CAN THEN SEEK
INDEMNIFICATION FROM THEM RIGHT
AGAIN THAT'S THAT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING SUBJECT TO BEAR
FIND THAT OBVIOUSLY WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC CONTRACTS
--
THAT MADE ME DIFFERENT SOME
MATERIAL WAYS.
AND THEN FINALLY.
IF THIS BODY WERE DO DO ANYTHING
REGARDING INVERSE CONDEMNATION
CLEARLY AND GIVE HEARD FROM THE
GET SENATOR REGARDING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OR QUESTIONS
REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALITY.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THIS WOULD
BE.
IN LITIGATION FOR YEARS PERHAPS
DECADES.
WELL I I OF COURSE CAN'T
SPECULATE HOW THE COURTS WILL
TREAT THIS BUT I HAVE REASON TO
BELIEVE BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A
HOTLY DEBATED QUESTION THAT
LIKELY MAKE IT MAKE ITS WAY TO
THE COURT.
AND THE COURTS WOULD BE FACED
WITH THE QUESTION --
SOONER RATHER THAN LATER BY I
CAN'T SPECULATE AS TO THE
TIMELINESS TO WIN THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT WOULD ADDRESS THIS
ISSUE [inaudible]
THANK YOU --
CENTER CAN HELP [inaudible]
THINGS CHAIRMAN SO.
I HESITATE TO PUT MY TOE IN THE
WATER IF THE ATTORNEYS HAVE
SPOKE BUT A SO THE CONSTITUTION
DOES IT.
DIFFERENTIATE FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT'S VERSES UTILITY
COMPANIES.
BUT NO DE NEITHER OF THEM ARE
DISCUSSED IN THE CONSTANT COULD
SO.
HOW CAN WE DIFFERENTIATE THEM
OUT WHY CAN A COURT?
AND MAKE A DECISION ON ONE AND
NOT THE OTHER WHAT HOW HOW DOES
THAT WORK.
WELL THE THE CASES WHICH I
REFERENCE.
RELY ON PUBLIC POLICY
DISTINCTIONS AND THEY MAKE AN
ARGUMENT THAT THE FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT SO UNIQUELY SITUATED.
AND SOCIETY BECAUSE OF THE THE
THE RISKY ACTIVITY THAT THEY
UNDERTAKE.
THE BENEFIT THAT THEY PROVIDE
AND THAT'S THE REASON CITED.
SO IF I WAS MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE REASON THIS STRIP CLUB
BILL OR INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
IS USE IS BECAUSE UTILITY
COMPANIES ARE OF PSEUDO
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAT CAN
TAKE PROPERTY THROUGH A IN THE
DOMAIN.
IS THAT THE TRIGGER TO APPLY
STRICT LIABILITY OR INVERSE
CONDEMNATION.
THE OTHER ONE WAS THAT THEY'RE
ABLE TO PASS ON THE COST THE
RATES AND THAT THE COURTS DIDN'T
CHIP IT DIDN'T DISCUSS THE FACT
IT THAT QUESTION IS SUBJECT TO
REASONABLENESS REVIEW.
AT THE CPUC AND SO AS SOON THAT
THE COST WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GO
AND RATES.
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE
THOUGH RIGHT SEEMS LIKE LOTS OF
TIMES UTILITY COMPANIES ARE OR
WILL THEY HAVE TO TO PAY THE
DAMAGES.
AND SO THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
IF THEY'RE NEGLIGIBLE THEY'LL
PAY BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT NOW
WITH THE THE STRICT LIABILITY OR
AN INVERSE COME NATION.
IF THERE IS A POLL THAT MEETS
EVERY PROPER STANDARDS BEEN YOU
KNOW.
LOOK AT BY THE FEW SEATS A
PERFECT CONDITION AND A TRUCK
HITS THE POLL.
KNOCKS THE LINES DOWN STARTS A
FIRE THE CREATES BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN DAMAGE OBVIOUSLY THE
PERSON DRIVING THE TRUCK CAN'T
AFFORD OF CLAIM DOT PAY THOSE
CLAIMS.
IS THAT NGUYEN STRICKLAND
ABILITY OR INVERSE CONDITIONAL
COME IN AND BE.
THE UTIL COMPOSE BEHELD THE PAY.
I I'M RELUCTANT TO TALK ABOUT
SPECIFIC HYPOTHETICALS BUT YES I
BELIEVE THAT THAT THAT'S COULD
BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN A UTILITY.
TO NOT AT NIGHT WITH NEGLIGENTLY
BUT THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE IS
GONE.
SOMEHOW IMPLICATED IN A FIRE IF
THEY'RE THEY'RE 1% RESPONSIBLE
--
THEY WOULD INCUR A 100% OF THE
OBLIGATION CORRECT I BELIEVE YOU
HAVE A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING YES
OKAY THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WOULD.
THANK YOU THANK YOU I'M DEATHLY
NON ATTORNEY SO MY QUESTIONS ARE
A LITTLE DIFFERENT --
LOOKING --
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S
[inaudible]
ARE.
PUTTING INFRASTRUCTURE TO
MITIGATE DISASTERS.
UTILITIES COULD IN [inaudible]
STRUCTURES THAT POTENTIALLY
CREATE DISASTERS [inaudible]
THROUGH [inaudible]
WHATEVER.
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME
RECONCILING WHY WE WOULD WANT TO
BASE POLICY ON ONE MAN I FIND
THEM VERY VERY DIFFERENT.
CAN NUKES GIVE ME SOME LOGICAL
EXPLANATION.
WELL I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION BUT I ALSO THINK
THAT THERE SIMILAR IN THAT THEIR
BOATS --
INFRASTRUCTURE TO PROVIDE GREAT
BENEFITS WITH WITH RISK.
AND SO I THINK YOU'VE PUT.
YOUR FINGER ON A POTENTIAL
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO AND
LIKE I SAID EARLIER I'M NOT
SAYING THEY'RE THE SAME.
BUT THEY'RE SIMILAR.
HE HAD DONE DOESN'T FEEL THAT
SIMILAR TO ME I GUESS.
I'M JUST JUST SAM PHAM.
CONSIDERING THE LEGAL BATTLES
THAT.
IF WE MAKE A DECISION HERE.
AND BUT THEN I BECAUSE I'VE
HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT
THERE'S A BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOING
ANY ANY CHANGES HERE --
WHAT ASSURE YOU WOULD THAT MEAN
FOR US TRYING TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIA?
THESE WILD FIRE MITIGATION PLANS
THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DRAWN UP
AND UP SUPERVISED BY THE P. YOU
SEE.
THAT THE LANGUAGE IS PRETTY
LOOSE IN THERE FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE.
IS COUNTY YOU GOT A TIME FRAME
BUT YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO STRIVE
FOR THAT --
ONCE THE PLANS IN IT BEEN
APPROVED YOU'VE GOT A TIME FRAME
FOR THAT THEY'LL BE YOU KNOW
EXECS AND THE NATION'S --
THE EFFICACY OF THAT WE HAVE TO
STRIVE FOR THAT --
UNDER THE NOSE BUT THERE'S WHAT
SMOKE IN THE AIR. TEN STRIVING
FOR SOMETHING.
ISN'T GOING TO BE GOOD ENOUGH
FOR SOME OF US.
WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING FOR HARD
DEADLINES.
AND REAL RESULTS.
SO THAT WE CAN ASSURE OUR
CONSTITUENTS THAT THAT WE ARE
ACTUALLY DOING YOU KNOW WHAT
THAT WERE ACTUALLY MOVING
FORWARD HERE.
BECAUSE I JUST FOR SEE IN
ADDITION OF LEGAL BATTLES HAS
SOME THESE MITIGATION PLANS TAKE
YEARS TO DEVELOP.
YEARS TO IMPLEMENT.
AND IN MEANTIME MILLIONS AND
MILLIONS MORE ACRES ACRES A
CALIFORNIA.
BURNT.
AND MORE PEOPLE DIE.
AND WERE AND WE'RE NOT ANY
CLOSER TO THAT.
AND SO.
I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION AND YOU
MAY A BILL ANSWER THIS --
BUT I AM PUZZLED AS PUZZLE ME
SINCE THE VERY FIRST MINUTE I
READ THIS IN THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL.
WHY THE DATE JANUARY FIRST TWO
THOUSAND AND?
EIGHTEEN WHY IS THAT DATE THERE
WHY SHOULDN'T WE BE LOOKING AT
GOING FORWARD WHY SHOULDN'T THIS
BE STANDARDS APPLY AFTER THE
PLANS ARE IN PLACE. FOR PEOPLE.
FOR THE UTILITIES AFTER THEY'VE
BEEN AFTER THEY'VE BEEN
INVESTIGATED TO BE SURE THERE
ADEQUATE WHY SHOULD WE GO
RETROACTIVELY WE DON'T EVEN KNOW
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE
REST OF TWO THOUSAND AND
EIGHTEEN YET THAT PROPOSAL ASKS
US. TO DO SOMETHING GOING BACK
IN TIME.
AND WE DON'T KNOW. SIX HUNDRED
AND AS OF TODAY SIX HUNDRED
SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND ACRES HAVE
BURNED IN CALIFORNIA THIS YEAR.
AND THAT WHO KNOWS WHERE IT'S
WHERE IT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO
END WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE
FURTHER [inaudible]
POTENTIAL UTILITY.
PROBLEMS OUT THERE THE COULD
CONTRIBUTE TO ADDITIONAL FIRE
SO.
SO EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC WHY
WE WOULD DO SOMETHING THAT SAYS
JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND
EIGHTEEN WE DON'T EVEN HAVE
ANYWAY TO MITIGATE.
THE POTENTIAL FUTURE FUTURE
CHALLENGES.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THAT DATE WAS ELECTED TO
PRECLUDE THE TWENTY SEVENTEEN
FIRES FROM BEING --
FROM THIS PROPOSAL PLAN THE
TWENTY SEVENTEEN FIRES.
AT ON THE TEAM IT --
I I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE IS
A ABSOLUTE MUST DATE COULD BE A
DIFFERENT DATES FOR THE WILL OF
THE LEGISLATURE TO THE SIDE.
AND THAT THAT DATE.
IS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
[inaudible]
KEEP. SEVEN MEMBER DOLLAR HERO
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN REAL
QUICK QUESTION SO THE ONE THING
I PICKED UP ON IN YOUR COMMENTS
WAS.
THE THAT THERE'S A DECISION MADE
AT SOME POINT ABOUT.
WHO PAYS THE RIGHT PAIR FOR THE
INVESTOR?
AND BUT WHAT I REALLY HEARD WAS
THAT AT THE END THE RIGHT PAIR
PICKS UP THE COST BECAUSE IF
THEY CAN'T BORROW MONEY SO WHO
MAKES THAT DETERMINATION.
AND HOW IS THAT IN THE PROCESS
BECAUSE I THINK. ONE OF THE KEY
THINGS IN THIS WHOLE FROM SINCE
I'VE BEEN LISTENING.
IS THAT.
YOU KNOW I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE
RIGHT PAIR.
NOT ONLY THE RIGHT PAIR BUT THE
INSURER AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE
THEY'RE THE SAME PEOPLE AT THE
END OF THE DAY.
AND YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
POWERS TO BE THAT TED WILL TAKE
CARE OF THEIR SELVES HERE BUT
THE RATE PARRIS THE GUYS ON THE
HOOK EVERY SINGLE TIME SEEMS
LIKE SO.
WHO MAKES DECISION AND WIN A
HOUSE THAT MADE IN THIS PROCESS?
WELL THE THE DECISION OF WHETHER
OR NOT TO HOLD UTILITY --
EXCUSE ME LET ME REPHRASE THAT
THE DECISION OF WHETHER NOT TO
ALLOW UTILITY RECOVER COST.
IS MADE AT THE CPC TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THEIR CONDUCT FOR THE
VAN THAT AT ISSUE [inaudible]
ON THERE'S AN EVALUATION THEIR
CONDUCT REGARDLESS OF THE
IMPLICATION HAS TO INSURANCE
MARKET REGARDLESS FOR THEM
IMPLICATE IMPLICATIONS HOUSE FOR
THE CAPITAL MARKETS --
OUR PREVIOUS DECISION THIS PAST
YEAR AS WE ALL KNOW BECAUSE A
LOT OF DISCUSSION AFTERWARDS.
ON BECAUSE THAT DECISION WAS
FOCUSED JUST ON THE THE FACTS
THAT DAY AND AND THOSE DECIDED
--
BASED OFF THOSE FACTS AND EACH
OF THESE CASES ARE FOR FOR OUR
DIFFERENT AND BASED ON THE
FACTS.
IS NOT A CONSIDERATION OF THE
THE REPORTS TAX IF YOU WILL AND
I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT
REDACTED THEN TAX RATE HERE'S
OUR ANYWAY NOT SIGNIFICANT.
BUT THE VALUATION IS OF WHETHER
NOT TO UTILITY CONDUCTING
THEMSELVES IN A PRUDENT WAY AND
THAT'S EVALUATION THAT HAPPENS
AT THE CDC [inaudible]
RIGHT.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THAT THIS
PRESENTATION THANK YOU MISTER
RALPH --
WELL DONE I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME
HERE BEFORE AT THIS --
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
THIS TIME ALTERNATE OVER TO
OTHER CO CHAIR HOLDEN
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
I ALSO LIKE TO JOIN IN THANK YOU
FOR A VERY CREDIBLE PRESENTATION
AND WE APPRECIATE THE INSIGHT.
THE FIRST PANELISTS ARE WE'RE
JUST BE MEAN PANEL.
ONE AND SO WE WILL CALL FORWARD.
THOSE PANELISTS FIRST WOULD BE
JOHN DUNBAR MAYOR.
TOWN OF YOUNG BILL CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES. TO
BE A PART OF THE SPELL AS WELL
AS DIANE DILLON.
SUPERVISOR NAPA COUNTY COUNTY
SUPERVISOR ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA.
REX FRASER PRESIDENT PERSONAL
INSURANCE FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA.
JOHN FISKE ATTORNEY AT LAW
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA.
AND PATRICK MCCOLLUM'S UP FROM.
THE ASHES.
AND I THINK A IN THE ORDER IN
WHICH YOU WERE CALLED UP A IS
HOW YOU PERCENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
I'M JOHN DUNBAR MAYOR OF THE
TOWN COUNCIL.
IN A BOARD MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK TO ALL OF YOU TODAY.
MY COMMUNITY IS A SMALL TOWN IN
NAPA VALLEY.
WHICH FOUND ITSELF IN THE MIDDLE
OF THE FIRE STORMS THAT
DEVASTATED THE NORTH BAY LAST
OCTOBER.
THE FORECAST THAT PRECEDED THOSE
WILDFIRES.
INCLUDED LOW HUMIDITY AND SEVERE
WINDS TRUSTING IN OUR
SURROUNDING MOUNTAINS IN THE
SIXTY SEVENTY MILE AN HOUR
RANGE.
ACCORDING TO CAL FIRES
INVESTIGATION.
AT LEAST A DOZEN OF THE SIXTEEN
FIRES THAT WERE IGNITED IN NAPA
AND NEIGHBORING CINEMA COUNTIES.
WERE CAUSED BY QUOTE.
ELECTRIC POWER IN DISTRIBUTION
LINES CONDUCTORS AND THE FAILURE
OF POWER POLES UNQUOTE.
JUST A FEW HOURS FIRE BURNED
THROUGH ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS
TAKING LIVES DESTROYING HUNDREDS
OF HOMES AND BUSINESSES.
AS SCORCHING MORE THAN ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES.
OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND AND
OPEN SPACE.
APPROXIMATELY ONE THOUSAND OF MY
TOWN'S THREE THOUSAND RESIDENTS.
OUR AGING VETERANS THAT THE ONE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR YEAR OLD
CALIFORNIA VETERANS HOME.
HAS THE HIGH WINDS PUSH FLAMES
INTO THE DIRECTION OF THE HOME.
IN THE AIR QUALITY REACHED A
HAZARDOUS LEVEL.
EVACUATION PLANS WERE ACTIVATED.
DOZENS OF AMBULANCES IN BUSES
RACED TO THE CAMPUS WHERE
VETERANS HOME STAFF.
WORK WITH POLICE AND FIRE
PERSONNEL. TO GET THE RESIDENTS
BOARDED AND HEADED TO SAFER
LOCATIONS.
FORTUNATELY FOR USTHE WINDS
CHANGED DIRECTION AND WE AVOIDED
A DIRECT HIT BY THOSE FIRES.
BY THE NARROWEST MARGIN WE
ESCAPED EVEN GREATER HUMAN AND
PROPERTY LOSS.
I TELL THE STORY IS A REAL
EXAMPLE OF HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF WILDFIRE
IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND
RESPONSE.
UTILITIES SHOULD BE EQUALLY
PREPARED.
AN EQUALLY RESPONSIVE IN SUCH
DANGEROUS CONDITIONS. FOR
DECADES ELECTED LEADERS HAVE
RELIED ON THE LAWS TO MAKE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR
CONSTITUENTS AND BUSINESSES HOLE
AFTER A DISASTER.
CAUSED BY AN INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITY.
WE COMMEND THE GOVERNOR'S
SUPPORT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
THROUGH HIS COMMITMENT TO
WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES
AFFECTED BY FIRE.
WE APPLAUD NEW INVESTMENTS IN
WILDFIRE PREVENTION MUTUAL AID
AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS.
WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNOR ON
HIS EMPHASIS ON SAFETY RESPONSE
FORESTRY MANAGEMENT AND
PREVENTION.
HOWEVER WE OPPOSE HIS PROPOSAL
TO CHANGE INVERSE CONDEMNATION
RULES.
I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE WAYS
IN WHICH INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
THE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT LEGAL
TOOL TO VICTIMS OF WILDFIRES
THAT WERE CAUSED BY UTILITIES.
THIS IS HOW WE REBUILD OUR
COMMUNITIES.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALREADY ARE
FACED WITH SIGNIFICANT COSTS AND
ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM THESE
WILDFIRES INCLUDING THE ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE TASK.
OF HELPING THE RESIDENTS IN OUR
COMMUNITIES BECOME WHOLE AND
RETURN TO A RELATIVELY NORMAL
LIFE.
PROPOSALS TO CHANGE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION RULES OPEN THE DOOR
TO ALLOW UTILITIES TO PASS OFF
LIABILITY TO OTHER ENTITIES.
INCLUDING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
REDUCE DAMAGE RECOVERY THE
VICTIMS WILL WOULD RECEIVE.
RESIDENTS IN CITIES CAN'T WAIT
YEARS FOR COURT TO DECIDE.
IF WE CAN REBUILD OUR BILL THE
CHANGES SHOULD NOT.
BECOME A BURDEN FOR OUR CITIES
ELECTRICITY DOES NOT HAVE TO
COME AT THE EXPENSE OF PUBLIC
SAFETY.
MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS ABOUT
PUBLIC SAFETY AND WILD FIRE
PROTECTION OR MORE IMPORTANT
THAN MAKING QUICK DECISIONS.
GIVEN THE SHORT TIME REMAINING
IN THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION DO
YOU HAVE THE TIME TO EVALUATE
PROPERLY AND COMPLETELY.
THE DETAILS AND GOVERNOR BROWN'S
PROPOSAL IN ORDER TO MAKE ANY
RECOMMENDATIONS OR CHANGE THE
LAW.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO THE
LIABILITY RULES LIKELY IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
VIOLATES AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT
TO RECEIVE JUST COMPENSATION.
AND SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN A
COURT OF LAW.
I URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO REJECT
REJECT THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION RULES.
AND CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION OF
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MUTUAL
AID AND INFRASTRUCTURE
MAINTENANCE.
OUR COLLECTIVE FOCUS SHOULD
REMAIN ON HOW WE CAN PARTNER
WITH THESE UTILITIES SO THEY CAN
OPERATE MORE SMARTLY AND MORE
SAFELY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR
CONSIDERATION [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITYTO PARTICIPATE AND
PROVIDE.
COMMENTS TO THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE I'M DIANE DILLON I'M A
COUNTY SUPERVISOR FOR THE FOR
THIRD DISTRICT AND NAPA COUNTY
--
ALL OF ALMOST ALL OF THE TEARS
THREE LANDS DESIGNATED BY CAL
FIRE IN MY SUPERVISORIAL
DISTRICT.
I'M ALSO ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS FOR CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES SEE
SECOND I'M SPEAKING ON THEIR
BEHALF TODAY.
IT WAS ONLY MONTHS AGO THAT WE
IN THE NORTH BAY WERE RAVAGED BY
FIRE.
THE TYPES FIRE STARTED WITHIN A
FEW MILES OF MY HOME.
MY COMMUNITY MY COMMUNITIES
STILL CONTINUE TO RECOVER.
IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN ALONE WILD
FIRES IN CALIFORNIA BURNED OVER
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES AND
TRAGICALLY TOOK FORTY THREE
LIVES.
FIRES ARE CONTINUING TO BURNING
CALIFORNIA'S WE ALL KNOW AS WE
SIT HERE.
AND WE MUST REMEMBER THAT ANY
CHANGES THAT WE MAKE TO LAWS
TODAY.
WHAT IMPACT FUTURE FIRE VICTIMS
AND WE WILL HAVE FUTURE FIRE
VICTIMS?
IT MAY IMPACT CURRENT FIRE
VICTIMS IF THAT DATE ISN'T
CHANGED.
C. SACKS STRONGLY BELIEVES THAT
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IN ADDITION WE BELIEVE THAT THE
CURRENT LEGAL STANDARD IS
CRITICAL TO COMPEL UTILITIES TO
INVEST IN SAFETY.
SAFETY NEEDS TO BE OUR MAIN
FOCUS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT
PREVENTION.
SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
UTILITIES.
WE NEED TO FOCUS ON FOREST
HEALTH.
RESILIENCY AND LAND USE
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE FOCUSING ON
CHANGING LONGSTANDING LIABILITY
LAWS THAT HAVE PROTECTED
VICTIMS.
NAPA COUNTY MAY NOT BE ON FIRE
RIGHT NOW.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S A HARM
PROBABLY WILL BE AT SOME POINT
AND THIS PROPOSAL WOULD
NEGATIVELY IMPACT.
FIRE VICTIMS IN THE FUTURE
LIMITING THEIR ABILITY TO FAIRLY
AND SWIFTLY BECOME BEEN SATED
FROM FIRES THAT UTILITIES COST.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL ASKED
THE COURT TO BALANCE THE BENEFIT
OF ELECTRICITY. TO SOMEONE'S
HOUSE BURNING DOWN.
HOW CAN THAT BE DONE HOW IS THAT
FAIR TO VICTIMS?
THIS IS A VERY RADICAL POLICY
CHANGE THIS PROPOSAL WILL SHIFT
LIABILITIES TO THE COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE TRYING TO RECOVER.
AND WHAT IS MOST GLARING.
IS THAT WE ARE DOING THIS IN
LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE IOUS
HAVE NOT BEEN MEETING THEIR
OBLIGATIONS.
TUESDAY NIGHT I HELD A MEETING
IN ANGLE AND THE COMMUNITY OF
THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE WHICH
INCLUDES A TWELVE HUNDRED
STUDENTS FOUR YEAR LIBERAL ARTS
COLLEGE.
I'M UP AT THE COMMUNITY THAT'S
AND TIER THREE THAT HASN'T
BURNED IN FIFTY YEARS THAT'S
VERY VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
FUTURE.
AND I HELD THE MEETING TO FOCUS
ON PGA IN ME AND WHAT THEY'RE
DOING IN THE COMMUNITY THE ARE
TRYING DESPERATELY TO DO THE
WORK THAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE AND
SHOULD HAVE DONE FOR YEARS AND
YEARS AND YEARS.
HAPPY TO SEND YOU ALL PHOTOS OF
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE GROUND
NOW.
AND WHAT THAT WILL MEAN IN TERMS
OF THIS POLICY CHANGE.
BECAUSE IT IS VIRTUALLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO THE
WORK THAT THEY NEED TO DO RIGHT
NOW. TO MAKE IT SAFER.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING
THE WAY IN WHICH THEY'LL BE
JUDGED ON HAVING THAT HAVING MET
THEIR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS USE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION TO BRING A LARGE
WELL FUNDED UTILITIES TO THE
TABLE TO SETTLE FOR DAMAGES
RATHER THAN SPEND YEARS AND
YEARS IN COURT UNDER NEGLIGENCE
SUITS.
SMALL COUNTIES HAVE LIMITED
RESOURCES AND WE BRING UTILITIES
TO COURT UNDER INVERSE
CONDEMNATION EVEN WHEN THEY
ACTED NEGLIGENTLY BECAUSE IT
BRINGS THEM TO THE TABLE SOONER
FOR SETTLEMENT.
WE HAVE TO START PROVIDING
SERVICES WE HAVE TO PUT OUR
COMMUNITIES BACK TOGETHER AGAIN
[inaudible]
AND WE HAVE TO BE IN COURT FOR
YEARS POTENTIALLY WITH THEM TO
BRING US TO SETTLEMENT ARM.
THAT'S THE CURRENT SITUATION
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY
THAT INCENTIVE FOR THEM.
SO WE HAVEN'T SHOWN WHERE THE
INCENTIVE IS FOR PGM NEED TO
COME TO THE TABLE WHERE IS THE
INCENTIVE TO GET THEM TO GO TO
THAT HIGHER BAR THAT SAN DIEGO
HAS SHOWN CAN BE DONE.
I'M WE ARE SOLUTION ORIENTED.
C. SACK ONCE THE STATE TO POKE
US ON HOW WE CAN REDUCE OUR RISK
OF WILDFIRE NOT ON HOW TO SHIFT
LIABILITY.
SO LET'S WORK TOGETHER FOR THAT
GOAL TO PROTECT ALL OF OUR
CITIZENS THANK YOU VERY MUCH
[inaudible]
YOU [inaudible]
REX [inaudible]
SENATOR DODD.
ASSEMBLYMAN HOLDEN AND MEMBERS
OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MY
NAME IS REX FRAZIER I'M
PRESIDENT OF THE PERSONAL
INSURANCE FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA.
ASSOCIATION OF HOME AND AUTO
INSURERS OPERATING IN
CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TALK ABOUT WILD FIRE PREVENTION.
AND RESPONSE SINCE THE FALL OF
TWENTY SEVENTEEN PROPERTY
INSURERS HAVE FOCUSED PRIMARILY
ON FIRE RESPONSE.
THOUSANDS OF CLAIMS PERSONNEL
HAVE BEEN WORKING TO PROVIDE
EMERGENCY RELIEF SUCH AS
ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES.
AS WELL AS LONGER TERM BENEFITS
SUCH AS HOME RECONSTRUCTION
FUNDS AND VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS.
THERE HAVE BEEN OVER FORTY FIVE
THOUSAND INSURANCE CLAIMS FROM
LAST YEAR'S FIRES.
WITH INSURED LOSSES ESTIMATED TO
REACH TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS.
INSURERS HAVE HANDLED THESE
CLAIMS WHILE REMAINING SOLVENT.
AND WITHOUT ASKING THE
LEGISLATURE FOR ANY RELIEF.
OBVIOUSLY THE WORK HAS NOT LET
UP IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN WITH THE
LATEST AND MOST DESTRUCTIVE
EVENT BEING THE CAR FIRE IN AND
AROUND READING.
WHICH HAS CLAIMED LIVES IN A
REACH INSURED PROPERTY LOSSES OF
UP TO ONE POINT FIVE BILLION
DOLLARS.
INSURERS PRESENTLY HAVE HUNDREDS
OF CLAIMS PERSONNEL ON THE
GROUND RESPONDING TO FIRES
ACROSS THE STATE.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF FIRE
RELATED PROPERTY LOSS IS PAID
FOR BY GOVERNMENTS AND PRIVATE
INSURANCE WHICH REALLY MEANS
TAXPAYERS BUSINESSES HOMEOWNERS
AND RENTERS.
AND IN TOO MANY CASES THEY'RE
UNINSURED HOME LOSSES INCLUDING
OVER THREE HUNDRED SUCH CASES
RELATED TO THE TWENTY SEVENTEEN
NORTH BAY FIRES.
IT IS DIFFICULT OPERATE AN
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA LAW PREVENTS INSURERS
FROM CHARGING ACTUAR REALLY
SOUND RATES IN MANY HIGH FIRE
AREAS.
IN FACT STATE REGULATIONS DO NOT
PERMIT THE USE OF FORWARD
LOOKING CLIMATE MODELS OR THE
ACTUAL COST OF REINSURANCE WHEN
DEVELOPING INSURANCE RATES.
THIS CAUSES INSURERS TO CONSIDER
A PARTIAL OR TOTAL WITHDRAWAL
FROM HIGH RISK COMMUNITIES.
WHICH UPSETS BOTH POLICY HOLDERS
AND POLICYMAKERS.
AND TRAPS INSURERS BETWEEN
EXPECTATIONS OF UNLIMITED
SERVICE TO ALL COMMUNITIES AND
RATE LEVELS THAT ARE
UNSUSTAINABLE.
IN MARCH WE WERE DISAPPOINTED
THE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES
WERE BLAMING LONGSTANDING
LIABILITY RULES AND CLIMATE
CHANGE FOR JEOPARDIZING THEIR
SOLVENCY.
BUT LET'S BE CLEAR UTILITIES
HAVE DECADES OF HAD DECADES OF
WARNING ABOUT FOREST CONDITIONS.
DEVELOPMENT AND MOVIE AREAS AND
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
FIFTEEN YEARS AGO A GOVERNOR'S
BLUE RIBBON FIRE COMMISSION
CHAIRED BY FORMER SENATOR BILL
CAMPBELL.
CLOSELY EXAMINED THESE ISSUES
AND THIS REPORT STATED. FOR MOST
FOREMOST AMONG THOSE LESSONS IS
A LACK OF POLITICAL WILL TO
PRIORITIZE COMPETING BUT
IMPORTANT POLICY GOALS PUBLIC
POLICY GOALS.
VEGETATION AND FUEL MANAGEMENT
HABITAT PRESERVATION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION HAVE
OFTEN CONFLICTED WITH SOUND FIRE
SAFE PLANNING IN THE
DEVELOPMENT.
OF WILDLAND AREAS.
UNLESS AND UNTIL PUBLIC POLICY
MAKERS OF GOVERNMENT.
MUSTER THE POLITICAL WILL TO PUT
THE PROTECTION OF OF LIFE AND
PROPERTY AHEAD OF COMPETING
POLITICAL AGENDAS THESE
TRAGEDIES ARE CERTAIN TO REPEAT.
LET'S NOT LET THE IOUS TAKE
DECADES OF WARNING AND SHIFT THE
NARRATIVE TO A YEAR OF EXCUSES
SURROUNDING A NEW NORMAL.
IF INSURANCE THOUGHT THE CLIMATE
CHANGES MAKING CALIFORNIA
UNINSURABLE.
WE WOULD SAY SO.
THE BIGGEST FIRE RELATED OR
THREAT TO LIFE AND PROPERTY IS
EXCESSIVE FUEL LOAD IN THE WEEK.
WHICH CAN BE MITIGATED.
I USE WANT OTHERS TO PAY FOR THE
FIRE LOSSES CAUSED BY
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY HAVE
INSTALLED USING THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN.
THEY WANT A FINANCIAL SHIFT TO
VULNERABLE PEOPLE THAT HAVE
ALREADY SUFFERED LOSSES WITHOUT
THE SLIGHTEST PRETENSE OF CARING
ABOUT THE MASSIVE TRADE OFF THAT
THIS BAILOUT ENTAILS.
INCLUDING HIGHER TAXES HIGHER
INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND COMPLETE
DEVASTATION OF UNINSURED
HOMEOWNERS.
IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO SOLVE ONE
PROBLEM BY CREATING MANY OTHERS.
IN THE CASE OF INSURERS
RECOVERING FROM UTILITY
RECOVERIES FROM UTILITIES GO
STRAIGHT TO REFUNDS OF INSURANCE
CUSTOMER DEDUCTIBLES.
INSURANCE COMPANIES DO NOT
PROFIT FROM SUBJUGATION STATE
RULES REQUIRE THE REMAINING
RECOVERIES TO BE USED FOR LOWER
INSURANCE RATES.
I USE ARE ASKING FOR THE BEST OF
ALL WORLDS SOCIALIZING THEIR
COSTS AND PRIVATIZING THEIR
BENEFITS.
THEY WANT TO WE'LL GOVERNMENT
POWER WHILE BEING TREATED LIKE
AN ORDINARY BUSINESS.
WHEN YEARS ARE GOOD THEY WANT TO
BE TREATED LIKE NORMAL
BUSINESSES DELIVERING SUPERIOR
INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE?
WHEN YEARS ARE BAD THEY ASK THE
PUBLIC TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS?
COURTS HAVE SAID THAT I USE WITH
THEIR MONOPOLY ADVANTAGE OUR
EQUIVALENT TO PUBLIC UNIVERSE
PUBLIC UTILITIES.
WHICH IS WHAT ALLOWS A PROPERTY
OWNER TO SEE WHEN I OWE YOU FOR
JUST COMPENSATION.
AND WHEN IN UTILITY DOES CAUSE A
FIRE EVEN WITH INVERSE
CONDEMNATION SUITS FIRE VICTIMS
TYPICALLY SETTLE FOR BETWEEN
FORTY AND 60% OF THE OVERALL
DAMAGE.
ON TOP OF THAT UTILITIES
COMMERCIAL INSURANCE HELPS THEM
PAY FOR THIS PARTIAL LIABILITY.
UTILITIES ARE STILL NOT
SATISFIED WITH THIS MATH.
AND WANT TO WALK AWAY WITH
PAYING NOTHING.
OR TO ENGAGE IN GRINDING
NEGLIGENCE LITIGATION FOR YEARS
AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE INDOOR
DISASTER.
A STATUTORY AMENDMENT OF COURT
FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS
OBVIOUSLY CONTENTIOUS AND IS
THERE ANY DOUBT THAT A BAILOUT
BILL ENACTED WILL IMMEDIATELY BE
CHALLENGED IN COURT.
OR POSSIBLY REFERRED AT THE
BALLOT.
P. JEANNINE EDISON.
CURRENTLY HAVE COURT CHALLENGES
SICK TO THEIR GOVERNMENT
LIABILITY REX CAN YOU BRING YOUR
COMMENTS CIRCLE I WILL OF THE I
DO HOPE FOR SOME ALLOWANCE WE'VE
HEARD MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES OF
MISINFORMATION FROM PEOPLE WHO
KNOW NOTHING ABOUT INSURANCE
TALKING ABOUT INSURANCE.
I WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR A FEW
EXTRA MINUTES OF AT BATS GLOBAL
BUDGETS RECOGNIZE WE SAID AT THE
VERY BEGINNING WITH THE LIBERALS
ARE GOING TO BE GOING FORWARD
AND WE DO HAVE OTHER PANEL
MEMBERS AND OTHERS HAVE ALSO
WE'RE TRYING TO MANAGE A TIME SO
THAT WE CAN.
GET TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL
ITSELF AND ALSO FROM WE DO I ALL
CLOSE THANK YOU.
WE DO HOPE THAT THIS BODY WILL
SHIFT ITS FOCUS TOWARDS BETTER
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT THERE'S
TOO MUCH FUEL IN THE MOVIE.
IF THERE ARE BARRIERS TO FUEL
REDUCTION WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU --
BY CHANGING LIABILITY RULES WILL
LEAD TO MORE FIRES AND NOT LESS.
WE KNOW FROM PREVIOUS TESTIMONY
THE UTILITIES CAN CHOOSE TO
OPERATE IN A SAFER MANNER.
INSURERS ARE COMMITTED TO THE
PROTECTION OF CALIFORNIA
HOMEOWNERS BUSINESSES AND
COMMUNITIES WE HAVE A LOT OF
WORK AHEAD AND WE URGE THIS
COMMITTEE TO FOCUS ON STRATEGIES
FOR REDUCING THE RISK OF FUTURE
FIRES.
AND TO IMPROVE THE
ACCOUNTABILITY OF I'LL USE TO
THEIR RATE PAYERS ND TO THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA THANK YOU.
THANK YOU AND JUST KNOW THAT IF
WE DON'T IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO
FINISH YOUR COMPLETED STATEMENT
THAT WE WILL RECEIVE IT IN
WRITING WHICH WE HAVE YOURS.
BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TO IN
A YEAR WILL GIVE YOU AN
OPPORTUNITY MAYBE EVEN AT SOME
OF THE COMMENTS I THINK THAT
REAL CHANCE PRESENT [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS JOHN FISKE I AM AN
ATTORNEY.
AND I AM HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THOUSANDS OF SURVIVORS.
INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF BUSINESSES
[inaudible]
RANCHERS FARMERS AND THE SEVEN
THOUSAND FAMILIES WHO LOST THEIR
HOMES IN.
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN I ALSO
REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY TWENTY
FIVE PUBLIC ENTITIES.
CONTAX PAIR RESOURCE AND
RECOVERY ACTIONS.
WE OPPOSE ANY CHANGE TO INVERSE
CONDEMNATION.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL.
NO FAULT CAUSE OF ACTION.
THAT HELPS FACILITATE EFFICIENT
RESOLUTION.
IN THE AFTERMATH OF UTILITY
CAUSED WILDFIRES.
HOMEOWNERS HAVE LIMITED A L. E.
ALTERNATIVE LIVING EXPENSES THAT
MAY LAST ONLY ONE OR TWO YEARS.
AND IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT
HOMEOWNERS ACHIEVE EFFICIENT
RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS FOR UNDER
INSURED LOSSES IN ORDER TO
REBUILD AND RECOVER.
WITHOUT REIMBURSEMENT FROM
RESPONSIBLE I USE PEOPLE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF
HOMEOWNERS SIMPLY CANNOT
REBUILD.
RANCHERS AND FARMERS DEPEND UPON
EFFICIENT RESOLUTION. TO HELP
REGROW LOST AVOCADO ORCHARDS OR
VINEYARD CROPS BOTH OF WHICH
WERE DESTROYED IN THE TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN FIRES.
PUBLIC ENTITIES RECEIVE INITIAL
HELP FROM FEDERAL AND STATE
FUNDS.
HOWEVER EVEN AFTER ALL STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDS ARE EXHAUSTED.
LOCAL PET PUBLIC ENTITIES ARE
STILL OUT TENS IF NOT HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
BECAUSE FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS
CATEGORICALLY DO NOT INCLUDE
CERTAIN LOSSES AND THE LOCAL
COST SHARE IN FEDERAL AND STATE
PROGRAMS CAN THEMSELVES BE TENS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
PARKS ROADS SIDEWALKS TREE
REMOVAL OVERTIME WATERSHED
RESTORATION WATER CONTAMINATION
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE
EXAMPLES OF UNCOVERED TAXPAYER
LOSSES.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS A
PROPERTY OWNERS ABILITY. TO
ENFORCE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS.
THE STANDARD ON INVERSE
CONDEMNATION IS.
WHETHER THE INJURY RESULTED FROM
THE INTENDED USE AND DESIGN OF
THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM.
IF THE INJURY DID NOT RESULT
FROM THE INTENDED USE AND DESIGN
OF THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM.
AN INVERSE CONDEMNATION DOES NOT
APPLY. FOR EXAMPLE.
IF A DRUNK DRIVER SWERVES A
HUNDRED YARDS OFF THE ROAD.
AND CRASHES INTO A UTILITY POLE.
THERE IS NO LIABILITY UNDER
UNDER INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
BECAUSE THE INJURY DID NOT
RESULT FROM THE INTENDED USE AND
DESIGN.
OF THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM.
WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE
SIGNIFICANT STEPS ES DE GENIE
HAS MADE IN THE LAST TEN YEARS.
INVESTING ONE BILLION DOLLARS
TOWARD PREVENTION.
IT IS UNDER THIS CURRENT
LIABILITY STRUCTURE THAT HAS
PRESSURED ES DE GENIE TO DO SO.
AND HAS PASSED THE VERY QUESTION
THAT INVERSE DEMANDS.
IS MY ELECTRICAL SYSTEM.
DESIGNED AND USED IN A WAY THAT
DOES NOT CAUSE WILD FIRES.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION EXISTS WHEN
P. GENIE CREATES THAT RISK.
IN IT'S INTENDED USE AND DESIGN.
SECONDLY INVERSE CONDEMNATION
REQUIRES A SHOWING THAT THE
INTENDED USE AND DESIGN WAS A
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN CAUSING
THE INJURY.
IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE THAT IF P.
GENII IS 1% AT FAULT THEY ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR A 100% OF THE
DAMAGES UNDER INVERSE
CONDEMNATION.
THAT EXAMPLE IS SIMPLY FALSE.
THAT CONCEPT OF APPORTIONMENT OF
FAULT APPLIES IN NEGLIGENCE.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION REQUIRES
THAT THE INTENDED USE AND
DESIGN.
WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN
CAUSING THE INJURY.
IT IS A NO FAULT SYSTEM OF
LIABILITY THAT ARISES WHEN I OWE
YOU EXERCISES ITS EMINENT DOMAIN
POWERS.
GRANTED BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA [inaudible]
FURTHER IOUS ALREADY SPREAD
THEIR RISK DURING AND AFTER
CLAIMS PROCESS SEES BY CROSS
CLAIMING AGAINST RESPONSIBLE
CONTRACTORS INCLUDING ARBORISTS
ENTRY TRIMMING Q. CREWS.
IN TWO THOUSAND SEVEN*
COMMUNICATION CONTRIBUTED OVER
FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS FOR
ITS RESPONSIBILITY IN THE SAN
DIEGO FIRES.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS FUN
CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT ROBS
PROPERTY OWNERS OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. TWO ONE
JUST COMPENSATION AND TO A JURY
TRIAL.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL OFF IT
ALSO OPENS NEW PATHWAYS FOR
PROTRACTED LITIGATION AGAINST
LOCAL AND STATE AGENCIES.
AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF A
RUSHED PROPOSAL.
I UNDERSTAND A LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL OPINION ALSO DISCUSS IT
DISCUSSES THE PROPOSALS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. TO BE CLEAR.
BUT GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
DOES NOT APPLY THE LAUGHLIN
FACTORS.
THE FACTORS THAT APPEAR IN THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL ARE NOT THE
LOCK ON FACTORS.
BUT ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP THEIR
FABRICATED.
I CANNOT FIND THEM ON THE LAW
AND I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHERE
THEY CAME FROM.
THE LAUGHLIN FACTORS THE ACTUAL
LACHLAN FACTORS HAVE BEEN
APPLIED ONLY TO FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT CASES.
WHERE THE INJURY?
IS THE EXACT FLOOD THAT THE
DISTRICT SOUGHT TO PREVENT.
CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE REGULARLY
AND REPEATEDLY REJECTED THE
APPLICATION OF THE LACHLAN
FACTORS TO ELECTRICAL UTILITY
CASES NAMELY AND PAC BELL VERSUS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON IT
CAN YOU BRING YOUR YOUR REMARKS
TOOK.
YES I'VE GOT THIRTY SECONDS.
EVERY MEMBER I'VE TALKED WITH
BOTH ON AND OFF THIS COMMITTEE
HAS PUBLICLY OPPOSED PASSED
THROUGH OR SECURITIZATION OF
LIABILITIES RESULTING FROM
NEGLIGENT CONDUCT.
I HAVE BEEN IN THE ROOM WHEN THE
IOUS HAVE STOOD UP.
AND EXPLAINED IF THE IOUS WERE
NEGLIGENT THE SHAREHOLDERS WILL
PAY.
IF THIS COMMITTEE ELIMINATES
INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
THE ONE NO FAULT THEORY OF
LIABILITY.
ALL THAT IS LEFT IS NEGLIGENT
LIABILITY.
AT THAT POINT WHAT YOUR PASSING
THROUGH.
OR WHAT YOUR SECURITIZED ING IS
NEGLIGENT LIABILITY.
OF A MULTI BILLION DOLLAR PUT
FOR PROFIT COMPANY.
THIS THREATENS THE VERY POLICY
BEHIND A. B. THIRTY THREE AND
SP.
TEN EIGHTY EIGHT YOU CANNOT BOTH
ELIMINATE INVERSE CONDEMNATION
AND ALSO PASS THROUGH OR
SECURITIZED NO FAULT LIABILITY.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
XP THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS SIGN PATRICK A COLUMN
REPRESENTINGUP FROM THE ASHES.
IT'S A BROAD COALITION OF MOSTLY
HOMEOWNERS THAT LOST THEIR HOMES
IN THE NORTH BAY FIRES AND IN
THE PRINTER AND SANTA BARBARA
FIRES WAS ALSO SMALL BUSINESSES
IT'S ALSO PRESCHOOLS.
THOUGHTFUL SCHOOLS IT FARMS IT'S
MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE.
ITS CITIES AND COUNTIES.
AND NOW JOINED BY THE HARD
HOWARD JARVIS ORGANIZATION.
IT'S CONSUMER GROUPS ZOOMER
ATTORNEYS WORKING WITH THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY WE ARE BROAD
COALITION.
WE MADE OUR CASE AROUND INVERSE
CONDEMNATION WERE ASKING YOU.
YOU ARE HEARING THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL TO HEAR IT AND THINK
IT.
BUT WE HAVE PUT A MAJOR CASE
TOGETHER WERE SUGGESTING THAT
YOU DROP THIS PROPOSAL THIS
AFTERNOON SO THAT WE CAN GET UP
OUR SLEEVES AND PRO AND FOCUS ON
WHAT YOU'RE.
WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITY THIS
COMMITTEE IS STATED TO BE
PREVENTION?
ACCOUNTABILITY AND SICK AND
SECURITY --
FOR OUR IOUS SO YOU HAVE TO ASK
YOURSELF.
FIRST OF ALL WHAT CAUSES FIRES
AND WHO CAUSE FIRES WE HAD A
RECENT REPORT JUST CAME OUT TWO
HOURS AGO.
P. GENIE FROM 200-014-22000.
SEVENTEEN BECAUSE THEIR
EQUIPMENT BECAUSE FIFTEEN
HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE DIFFERENT
FIRES. EIGHTEEN OF THOSE WERE
THE FIRES WHICH CAL FIRES RULED
ON THAT WE KNOW ABOUT.
THOSE OTHER FIRES MANY TIMES OUR
INDIVIDUAL HOMES.
THOSE HOMEOWNERS IF THEY WERE
PREDOMINATELY AT FALL UNDER
INVERSE CONDEMNATION GET
REIMBURSED.
TO IF YOU'D TAKE THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL YOU'RE NOT JUST
CHANGING.
CITIES AND COUNTIES YOU'RE
CHANGING INDIVIDUAL INVERSE
CONDEMNATION.
WILL THE GOVERNMENT WE HAVE TO
ASK OURSELVES.
WILL THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
IT FITS YOUR DISTRICT IT ENDS UP
HAVING AN IOUS BECAUSE FIRE.
REIMBURSED THAT HOMEOWNER.
WHO IS A MIDDLE CLASS PERSON OR
IS UNDER INSURED?
AND IS BY THE WE FOUND OUT ABOUT
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNDER
ENSURE.
WILL THAT HOMEOWNER BE ABLE TO
REIMBURSE THAT ECONOMIC DAMAGE
THAT THAT I OWE YOU BECAUSE IN
IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE WHETHER
THEY'RE ABLE TO BUILD OR
REBUILD.
WE WOULD ANSWER NO THEY CAN'T.
WITH THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
AS IF IT WERE ANOTHER CITY.
WHEN THEY HAD A BENZENE LEAK AS
SANTA ROSA DID WHERE IT DAMAGE
THE PIPES AND CREATED BEEN SEEN?
IN ASSEMBLY ONE WOODS DISTRICT.
IT COSTS A I BELIEVE THIRTY
EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS TO REPAIR.
WITH THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA FOR
ALL ITS COSTS AND STUFF PEOPLE
TO BE REIMBURSED FOR WAY OVER
AND ABOVE WHAT THEY STEPPED UP
TO BECAUSE NO IT MAY NOT.
WILL THE RECENT FIRES --
THERE WERE CAUSED BY UTILITIES.
HELP THE CREDIT MARKETS.
WHICH YOU'RE MANY OF YOU ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT WILL HELP THAT
THE STABILITY.
A PARTICULAR EPG NAY.
IF WE FIND OUT THAT THEY'RE THE
CAUSE OF THE TUB FIRE.
THE ANSWER IS MR FISKE SAID.
IT'S PROBABLY NOT.
BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DEALT WITH
WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO DEAL
WITH PREVENTION.
THESE SMART LAWYERS GONNA FILED
NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS.
AND THOSE NEGLIGENT CLAIMS ARE
GONNA BE PROBABLY CONVICTED AS
MR FISKE HAS TALKED ABOUT AND
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PASS THAT
THROUGH.
OR GET YOU TO SECURITIZED DEBT
THAT [inaudible]
WILL.
IT DOESN'T PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL
TEST.
YOUR OWN LEAD COUNSEL OUR
COUNCIL SAYS NO.
COULD IT REYES INSURANCE RATES
OR DRIVE.
INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT OF
CALIFORNIA.
BOB WE'VE IN MY AREA AND
FOUNTAIN GROUP I KNOW MANY
PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE
TO BE RE ENTERED AS THEY LOOK TO
BUYING A NEW HOUSE ALREADY
[inaudible]
SO.
AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS IF WE
CONTINUE TO SPEND.
ALL OUR TIME ON INVERSE
CONDEMNATION WHICH IS THE EIGHT
HUNDRED POUND GORILLA.
AND A DISTRACTION YOU ONLY HAVE
SEVENTEEN DAYS LUCK.
BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
PREVENTION.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MISTER.
DOLLIES PROPOSALS AROUND FOR
SPENDING OR HOW TO GET ROAD
ACCESS INTO FORESTS OR ALL THE
REST OF THINGS.
BUT PLEASE MISS JACKSON'S
DISTRICT OUT AS WE KNOW WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT.
WERE BATTLING OVER THAT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY.
WE KNOW WHAT CAUSES FIRES WE
KNOW THAT SAN DIEGO ELECTRIC WAS
GOOD WE KNOW THAT THERE'S
FIFTEEN HUNDRED FORTY ONE OTHER
FIRES CAUSED BY P. GENIE AND
THAT THEY WERE NEGLIGENT AND
ELEVEN LET'S GET.
FIRE MARSHALS ORDER CAL FIRE
YOUR DECISION TO DO TO BILL
MAHER THOSE LINES IF THEY FOLLOW
THE STANDARDS.
THEN WE WON'T HAVE THESE FIRES.
IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE FIRES
THEN THEY WILL BE STABLE WITHIN
IT -- SO WE
DO SUPPORT A COMPREHENSIVE
PROPOSAL WE WANT TO WORK WITH
YOU PULLED INSURANCE
[inaudible]
SECURITIZATION PREVENTION AND
ALL THOSE THINGS AND FOR ME.
AND THE CONSTITUENTS I REPRESENT
AS YOU ALL KNOW I AND MY WIFE
WOKE UP AT FOUR IN THE MORNING
ON OCTOBER THE NINTH. TO HELP
OUR HOUSE ON FIRE RAN FOR
FIFTEEN MINUTES THROUGH FLAMES
BURNING UNDER FOOT FLAMES.
AND ALMOST DIED IF NOT FOR NOT
TO THE FIREMAN SO I AM DOING
THIS SO THAT WHAT HAPPENED TO US
LAST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER.
WHAT HAPPENED IN JANUARY NOT
ACETO OR IN DECEMBER IN THE
TORAH COUNTY?
DOESN'T HAPPEN TO YOUR
CONSTITUENTS AND THAT'S WHAT
WE'D LIKE TO TO WORK ON AND HELP
YOU WITH.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
IF YOU ARE WE APPRECIATE YOUR
PRESENTATION THE PERSONAL ASPECT
THAT YOU BRING TO IT.
AND THEN ALL OF YOU HAVE
CERTAINLY GIVEN US --
ADDITIONAL INSIGHT THAT I THINK
IS GOING TO BE VERY HELPFUL I I
WANTED TO IF I COULD.
AND I'LL TURN TO OTHERS ON THE
COMMITTEE. FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU
MAY HAVE BUT I IN THE AS THE
GOVERNOR'S REPRESENTED WAS
MAKING HIS PRESENTATION ON OF
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
THERE WAS A A LOT OF QUESTIONS
AROUND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT'S
AND HOW.
THAT WAS THROUGH THE MODEL.
OF TO ESTABLISH WITHIN THAT
PROPOSAL I'D LIKE TO GET INTO
MANY MISTRESS HERE THE PERSON TO
RESPOND.
AND OTHERS CAN AS WELL OF AND I
THINK IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU
ALLUDED TO IT TO SOME DEGREE --
BUT IF YOU COULD KIND OF GO BACK
OVER INSERTED DESCRIBED.
WHERE CAN I KNOW SENATOR
JACKSON'S MADE SOME COMMENTS TO
THE?
EFFECT BUT I'D BE INTERESTED IN
JUST HEARING YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
ON OF THE MODELS FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT'S AND HOW.
THEY COULD BE USED OR IN THIS.
THEY ARE NOT THE MOST
APPROPRIATE.
A WAY TO MAKE THIS A COMPARISON.
THANK YOU APPRECIATE THAT AND I
FIRST WANT TO START OFF BY
SAYING THERE WERE A LOT OF
MISSTATEMENTS ABOUT THE LAW I'VE
READ BELLAIRE OF RED LAUGHLIN.
READ THE PROGENY OF CASES THAT
COME FROM THAT --
I THINK THERE IS A LACK OF
FOUNDATION IN THE LEGAL ANALYSIS
FROM MICHAEL LARA --
MISTER PICKERING MISTER RALPH
INSIDE I'M GONNA CLARIFY THAT
NOW.
THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CASES
IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT USING
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IT'S STILL
A PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHT TO
ENFORCE ITS EMINENT DOMAIN
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
WHAT THE COURTS DID IN THOSE
CASES IS TAKE A LOOK AT A
SITUATION A GEOGRAPHICAL?
TOPOGRAPHICAL SITUATION WHERE
FLOODS ALREADY EXIST IT'S A RISK
THAT WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE
AND A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY HAS
SAID WE'RE GOING TO GO NGUYEN
pRISK.
THE RISK IS ALREADY CREATED BY
NATURE AND A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY
IS TAKING ON THE ROLE OF THE
RISK PREVENTER.
IN THAT SITUATION THE COURTS
WERE LOOKING AT A BALANCING OF
FACTORS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS
TAKING ON THE CONTROL OR THE
PREVENTION OF OF NATURE.
IT IS SUCH A NARROW EXCEPTION.
THAT BEAT FLOOD THAT IS THE
SUBJECT OF THE INJURY OF THE
LAWSUIT.
HAS TO BE THE VERY FLOOD THAT
WAS TRYING TO BE PREVENTED.
SO EVEN IN --
IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF SITUATION
AND IN FACTI'VE GIVEN YOU A
HAND OUT OF ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT
DIFFERENT CASES IN WHICH THE
LAUGHLIN FACTORS WERE REJECTED.
BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A NARROW
EXCEPTION IT IS STILL INVERSE
CONDEMNATION BUT IT ONLY APPLIES
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUT ON
THIS HALF OF SAID HEY WE'RE
GOING TO GO AND TRY TO PREVENT A
RISK THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
P. GENIE IS NOT A FIRE
PREVENTION DISTRICT.
THEY ARE CREATING A RISK WHEN
THEY DESIGN AND USE THEIR SYSTEM
AS INTENDED.
THAT IS JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER
ALL 99% OF OTHER INVERSE
CONDEMNATION CASES IS BECAUSE
THE GOVERNMENT IS CREATING A
RISK OR HEAR THE GOVERNMENT HAS
GRANTED POWERS. TO BE I OWE YOU
WHICH NOW HAS BROAD EMINENT
DOMAIN POWERS. TO PUT POLLS AND
LINES AND DESIGN THEIR SYSTEM
QUITE FRANKLY IN.
AND AWAY THAT GIVES THEM AN
ENORMOUS POWER TO DO SO.
THEY'VE CREATED THAT RISK AND
THAT'S WHY DID TRADITIONAL
STANDARD WHICH IS INTENDED USE
AND DESIGN APPLIES TO ELECTRICAL
SYSTEMS.
IF I IF I MAY FAT IN THE IN THE
pSENATOR JACKSON'S ASKING ABOUT
THEY SPEND EIGHT PARAGRAPHS
ANALYZING JUST THIS ISSUE.
IT WAS THE EXPLICIT ARGUMENT BY
EDISON IN THAT CASE. TO HAVE THE
LACHLAN FACTORS APPLY TO THEM.
THE COURT TOOK EIGHT PARAGRAPHS
TALKING ABOUT WHY THERE IS NO
COMPARISON AT ALL.
AND IN FACT.
IF IF IN THAT CASE EDISON GOT
WHAT IT WANTED WHERE DOES THAT
END.
HOW MANY OTHER WAYS WOULD BE
PEOPLE OR GOVERNMENTS BE SIR
SEEKING TO ESCAPE LIABILITY?
AND FOR THAT REASON THE COURT
ROUND THE OBJECT A REJECTED THE
USE OF LACHLAN FACTORS IN THESE
UTILITY CASES.
AND IF I COULD AND THEN I'LL
JUST I'LL TURN TO SENATOR HUESO
--
BUT I GUESS I'M I'M.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR
ABOUT HOW YOU DESCRIBED.
OF THIS POTENTIAL RISK THAT
UTILITIES CREATED THE RISK I
THINK IS WHAT YOU DESCRIBE BY
VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE
PUTTING.
BUILDING POLLS AND LONGTIME GOOD
RUNNING.
THROUGH WOODED AREAS RIGHT --
HOW DO YOU?
AT THE END OF THE DAY HOW DO YOU
BALANCE THAT WITH THE FACT THAT
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
TO HIS PROVIDE UTILITY POWER.
THROUGHOUT.THE SPADE AND IT HAS
TO RUN
THROUGH AREAS.
THAT ARE IN THIS CASE WOODED AND
NOT ALL BUT AND THEN KAMOSE
WHERE THEY HAVE TO RUN THROUGH
AREAS WHERE THERE COULD BE
POTENTIAL.
FIRE RISK BUT IT FOR THE
BENEFIT.
OF EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM AND
EVERYONE OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM.
SO THAT WHEN THEY HIT THE SWITCH
THE LIGHTS COME ON SO I I'M
TRYING TO RECONCILE THESE.
GREAT QUESTION IF IT BRING OUR
YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE.
AFTER A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE AFTER
THE TWO THOUSAND SEVEN FIRES --
INVERSE CONDEMNATION WAS APPLIED
AGAINST SD JEANNIE.
IT REQUIRED SDG NEED TO ASK THE
QUESTION ON INFERS.
DOES OUR SYSTEM IS OUR SYSTEM
INTENDED AND DESIGNED AND USED
IN A WAY THAT REDUCES OR
ELIMINATES THAT RISK.
AS THE GENIE SAID TO THEMSELVES
WE DO NOT WANT HAVE TO PAY
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND BURN
DOWN HOMES EVER AGAIN.
THEY ASK THEMSELVES THAT
QUESTION THAT'S WHY INVERSE
CONDEMNATION IS SO IMPORTANT IT
REQUIRES THE UTILITIES TO ASK
THEMSELVES THAT QUESTION. TO
REDUCE AND ELIMINATE.
THE RISK THEY SPEND ONE BILLION
DOLLARS OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS.
AND JUST RECENTLY IN THE LILACS
FIRE IS ABOUT FIVE MILES FROM MY
HOUSE I WAS WAITING FOR US TO DO
YOU NEED TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT
THAT THEY'RE TURNING OFF POWER.
THEY TURNED OFF POWER. FOR
EIGHTEEN TO TWENTY THOUSAND
CUSTOMERS FOR ABOUT EIGHT TO
TWELVE HOURS.
AND I WAS VERY IMPRESSED AT THE
THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE THOSE
DECISIONS TO POWER DOWN AND HIGH
WHEN POLICIES SO THE LAW ASKS P.
GENIE. TO LOOK AT THE WAY THEY
DESIGN THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE WHAT
KIND OF POLLS ARE USING WHAT
KIND OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
POLICIES DO WE HAVE WHAT KIND OF
RE CLOSER POLICIES DO WE HAVE
WHAT KIND OF A POWER DOWN IN
HIGH WIND SITUATIONS DO WE HAVE.
WHEN WE'RE INTENDING AND USING
OUR SYSTEM IN A WAY THAT
ELIMINATES RISK THAT'S HOW WE
RECONCILE DELIVERING POWER TO
FIFTEEN MILLION PEOPLE?
AND STILL ARE REDUCING THE RISK.
SO YOU IMPLEMENT A PGA ANY
STRATEGY THAT DEFINES IN YOUR
MIND A PRUDENT MANAGER.
I'M SORRY CAN YOU REPEAT THAT
THE STANDARDS THAT P. JEANNIE.
HAVE IMPLEMENTED DOES THAT.
ESTABLISHING YOUR MIND APPROVING
MANAGER THAT P. SORRY I'M SAFE
EUGENIE ES DE JEANNIE THE
ACRONYMS ARE KILLING ME FOR SDG
ANY -- I
WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE
POLICIES AND THIS IS ACTUALLY
PART OF A DISCOVERY PROCESS IN
LITIGATION ROUND THE CONGRESS'S
RIGHT BUT I DO BELIEVE THE SD
GENIE HAS SET A STANDARD THAT IS
SO FAR AND ABOVE WHAT P. GENIE
HAS DONE.
THAT P. GINNY REGARDLESS OF WHAT
AS TO JEANNIE HAS DONE NEEDS TO
CATCH UP OKAY --
I THINK SOONER HUESO --
AND THE SOONER CHAD MAYES NOT I
JUST WANT TO GET TO THE
DISTINCTIONS AS TO WHY --
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS WERE
STYLISH TO BEGIN.
SO WHY DID WE EVEN NEED A FOUGHT
FOR FLOOD CONTROL CRUISE CONTROL
DISTRICT WITH A SPECIFIC WHICH
YOU MENTIONED A BALANCING FACTOR
[inaudible] TO ESTABLISH.
LIABILITY IN THE CASES OF
PROPERTY OWNERS AND FLOODING.
WELL ORIGINALLY FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT'S CAME BEFORE --
THE BALANCING LAWS IN THE OLD
WESTERN DAYS PEOPLE WERE WALKING
AROUND IN MUDDY DIRTY WATER AND
WE REALIZED IN ORDER TO BUILD
GOOD SOCIETIES IN ORDER TO
ALLOW.
OUT ROADS TO BE USED IN ORDER
FOR OUR HOMES TO BE BUILDING
COMMUNITIES TO BE BUILT WE
NEEDED TO WORK AGAINST NATURE.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO MITIGATE
THAT RISK IN THE MITIGATION OF
THAT RISK THE LAW RECOGNIZES
THAT THE RISK ALREADY EXISTS AS
A FUNCTION OF NATURE GEOGRAPHY
TOPOGRAPHY AND AND SO THE SHORT
ANSWER IS IN ORDER TO DEVELOP
LAND YOU NEEDED TO CREATE A
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT. TO AT
LEAST ALLOW THOSE INVESTMENTS TO
BE MADE.
SO IT IT IT TRIGGERED THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LAND --
NO I THINK IT'S THE OTHER WAY
AROUND I THINK FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICTS WERE DOING THE JOB
THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO.
IN MITIGATING A RISK.
THEY DIDN'T DOES SIGN FOR
EXAMPLE THE FLOOD.
THEY DIDN'T DESIGN THE WAY THAT
THE MOUNTAINS AND THE RAIN WATER
FLOODS INTO A CERTAIN BASIN.
HERE ESTEEM GENIE P. GENIE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ARE
STARTING FROM SCRATCH.
THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE POLL
THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE RISK WITH
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT THE RISK
IS CREATED BUT NO NO I'M I'M
UPON WHICH I ONLY HAVE LIMITED
TIME.
GET TO MY POINT.
AND I JUST WANNA I JUST WANT
ESTABLISH WHAT THAT.
THAT FULCRUM IS A DECIDES WHERE
WHERE THE LAWS APPLIED SO.
IN THE CASE OF OF OF FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT IT WAS THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ULTIMATELY
IT'S THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND
WITHOUT A FULL PHILIP CONTROL
DISTRICT.
HE CAN'T THE FLOODS COME AND WE
UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT GONNA
CONTROL NATURE.
YOU KNOW SO THAT YOU CAN YOU CAN
MITIGATE IMPACTS OF A NO SIR
THAT'S NOT THE POLICY REASONING
BEHIND THE FLOOD CONTROL CASES
THE POLICY REASON BEHIND THE
FLOOD CONTROL CASES IS THAT
NATURE HAS CREATED THE RISK.
AND HERE I OKAY EN IS CREATING
THE RISK WITH INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT'S A FULCRUM WELL.
IT AND THAT MAY BE SO.
THE QUESTION IS [inaudible]
TODAY.
IS A AND YOU'RE ARGUING THAT
MAYBE IT'S NOT --
CLIMATE CHANGE THIS BECAUSE IN
THE RISK.
NO EIGHT WHAT'S CAUSING THE RISK
BECAUSE IN ORIGIN.
AND THERE ARE AND THERE ARE
ENORMOUS TEAMS OF LAWYERS ON
BOTH SIDES OF AYE USING
PLAINTIFFS.
THAT HAVE VERY EXPERIENCED FIRE
INVESTIGATORS.
CAL FIRE DETERMINES THE ACTUAL
CAUSE AND ORIGIN OF THE FIRE THE
SPARK STARTS SOMEWHERE.
AND THAT SOMEWHERE COMES FROM
THE INTENDED USE AND DESIGN THE
WEEPY GENIE HAS DESIGNED ITS
INFRASTRUCTURE CAUSES THE SPARK.
CLIMATE CHANGE MAY EXACERBATE
THE SITUATION WHICH IS ALL THE
MORE REASON WHY WE NEED INVERSE
CONDEMNATION TO REDUCE THAT RISK
SNIPPY JEANNIE ASKS ITSELF.
DOES OUR SYSTEM IS OUR SYSTEM
DESIGNED IN USED IN A WAY THAT
REDUCES THAT RISK IN LIGHT OF
CLIMATE CHANGE ARE BUT DON'T YOU
THINK WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF
CLIMATE CHANGE DON'T YOU THINK
CLIMATE CHANGE HAS TRIGGERED --
ENORMOUS MODIFIERS AND A DROUGHT
THAT HAS DECIMATED A HUNDRED
TWENTY MILLION TREES THAT HAS
CREATED MORE FUEL THAN THE STATE
OR ANYONE INCLUDING UTILITY OR
PROPERTY OWNER CAN MANAGE I
THINK WE'RE HERE TODAY AT THIS
HEARING BECAUSE THE P. GENIUS
ASKING FOR SOME SORT OF BAIL
OUT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE
TODAY FOR THIS HEARING I DON'T
THINK WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE
OF OVERALL CLIMATE CHANGE I
THINK THERE ARE OTHER HEARINGS
THAT MAY ADDRESS THAT.
ONLY ONE BUT THE WELL THAT'S
WHAT YOU'RE DEVIATE IN OTHER
WORDS I ASKED A QUESTION.
THE QUESTION WAS IS CLIMATE
CHANGE BECAUSE INNOCENT CAN WE
KNOW CERCAN CONT CLIMATE CHANGE
DOES NOTCAUSE AND START
WILDFIRES.
DOES DOES THAT DOES DOES A
CONSTRUCT DROUGHT THAT CAUSES
PLAGUE THAT CAUSES THE DEATH OF
A HUNDRED TWENTY MILLION TREES
CERTAIN KNOW WHAT CAUSES
WILDFIRES IN YOU CAN ASK CAL
FIRE.
IN SIXTEEN OF CASES THEY FOUND
THAT P. GINNY BECAUSE SIXTEEN OF
THOSE FIRES IN ELEVEN OF THOSE
SIXTEEN PGD FAILED TO FOLLOW
CURRENT STATE STANDARDS.
P. JEANNIE AND ITS EQUIPMENT HAS
BECAUSE I AGREE THAT CLIMATE
CHANGE IS HERE.
I AGREE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE MAY
EXACERBATE THE SITUATION IT'S
ALL THE MORE REASON WHY WE NEED
TO BE PROTECTIVE OF HOMEOWNERS
AND ASK THESE COMPANIES TO ASK
THEMSELVES.
IS OUR SYSTEM DESIGNED AND USED
IN A WAY THAT REDUCES THAT RISK.
AND I I JUST WANTED TO ESTABLISH
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FLOOD
CONTROL.
AND AND UTILITY DISTRICTS AS IT
AS IT RENDERS PROPERTY PROPERTY
USEFUL IN DEVELOPABLE.
AND AND THE BALANCING FACTOR IN
BOTH INSTANCES FROM MY FROM MY
POSITION IS NATURE.
NATURE IS CHANGING WHICH
REQUIRES A RESPONSE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU KNOW I
DON'T.
I'M NOT.
FOR A BAILOUT AND I DON'T
NECESSARILY.
THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA BE
LOOKING FOR IN THIS COMMITTEE
ANYTHING THAT THAT.
TRANSLATES INTO A BAILOUT
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK MALE AT
ITS.
AND THIS IN THIS ISSUE ARE
NECESSARY.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD RUSH TO
DECISION THAT EITHER CONTRIBUTES
TO A A BAILOUT QUARRY OR IN ANY
WAY GIVES PROPERTY OWNERS --
TO COURT DO RECOURSE TO TO OUR
RECOVER THEIR REMEDIES AND I
THINK THAT THE DECISION THAT
WE'VE SEEN FIVE LEGAL COUNSEL.
SHOWS THAT WE HAVE WE HAVE
LIMITED ABILITY TO EVEN --
AFFECT.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND IF WE
TRIED AYE I DON'T THINK WOULD
PREVAIL BUT NONE THE LESS I
UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT I MEAN
THE RELATED.
AND THAT'S THAT'S AN AREA THAT
WE SHOULD JUST UP.
A IF IF WE DO WE DO ANYTHING IT
SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT AS WHO
THE FOR THE THAT THE THE THE
RELATED ISSUE.
PERCENT THAT.
BOAT.
RACE.
ON THE SURFACE GOV --
I'VE ENJOYED OUR ROBUST ROBUST
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD US
SEVERAL OF THEM NOW AS RECENTLY
AS YESTERDAY ON WHICH WAS A LOT
OF FUN AND I FOUND.
I'M YOU ARE TO BE SOMEBODY WHO
WILL -- IN
REGARDS THE DOCTRINE OF THE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION --
SOME HIS WILL READ STUDIED ON
AND AND UNDERSTANDS IT NOW WHICH
IS ALWAYS VERY NICE WHEN THERE'S
AN ATTORNEY THAT ACTUALLY GETS
THIS -- NO
OFFENSE TO THE ATTORNEYS IN THE
ROOM -- SO I
pIN REGARDS --
TO INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND THE
AND THE LIABILITY I'M QUESTION.
ARE THERE ANY DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN.
THE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES AND
THE PUBLIC PUBLICLY OWNED
UTILITIES AND IF THERE ARE WHAT
ARE THEY OKAY GREAT QUESTION.
AND THIS IS WHAT I THINK IS THE
HEART OF THESE ISSUES --
IN TERMS OF THE STANDARDS
THEMSELVES THE LIABILITY
STANDARDS IN COURT THERE'S NO
DIFFERENCE.
WHAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS
DONE?
HAS DECIDED THAT IS GOING TO
TAKE ITS.
INHERENT EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS.
AND GIFT SOME OF THOSE WHO LOST
COOLEY TEACH A BUNDLE OF STICKS
ARE GONNA GIFT YOU A BUNDLE OF
STICKS TO DEMO USER PO USE.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA HELD BACK THE
POWER TO PASS THROUGH OR
SOCIALIZE ON TO REPAIRS.
AND THAT IS WHERE MUCH OF THE
CONSTERNATION WITH I USE EXISTS
IS THAT THIS CITY CALIFORNIA
GIFTED THEM THE ABILITY TO HAVE
EMINENT DOMAIN POWER AND BUILD
THESE MASSIVE ELECTRICAL GRIDS.
BUT THEY HELD BACK IN THE CPUC
VIS OUR AUTHORITY --
TO TO PASS ON TO RATEPAYERS OR
TO DO SOMETHING LIKE
SECURITIZATION OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN PO USING I'LL USE ON A
MIXTURE A CLEAR BUT IN REGARDS
TO LIABILITIES THERE ISN'T ANY
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PEEL USE
AND THE I'LL USE NOT THAT I'M
AWARE.
OF IT THANK YOU.
AND SOME WOMEN HOLDEN JUST VERY
QUICKLY WE WROTE BUT LET ME JUST
BECAUSE DO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR
CONCERT [inaudible]
I THOUGHT.
YEAH I JUST GOT A QUICK QUESTION
BEFORE WE WRAP UP THIS THIS GUY
KEPT SPECIFIC PANEL.
I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT --
TO NOTE FOR THE AUDIENCE IN
FAVOR MEMBERS HERE.
THE P. GENIE WAS SPECIFICALLY
EXCLUDED FROM THE PANELS TODAY
BECAUSE I THINK FROM MY VANTAGE
POINT I FELT LIKE THEY DID HAVE
AN AX TO GRIND AND IN THIS
SPECIFIC TOPIC THOUGH.
JEANNIE'S --
OUTSIDE COUNSEL WILL BE UP I
THINK ON THE NEXT PANEL IF NOT
THE NEXT ONE THE ONE AFTER THAT
[inaudible]
AND FOR SOMEBODY THAT HAS BEEN I
THINK A GOOD ACTORS THEY'RE
EQUALLY AS ANXIOUS TO HAVE --
YOU KNOW THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
PUT FORWARD ABOUT OPINING ON
WHERE THAT'S RIGHT WRONG OR
INDIFFERENT I JUST WANTED TO SET
THE RECORD STRAIGHT [inaudible]
IT.
OKAY THANK YOU ALL VERY VERY
MUCH APPRECIATED.
OKAY PANEL NUMBER TO PLEASE COME
FORWARD [inaudible]
SURE.
SO WE HAVE HENRY WISEMAN
ATTORNEY ALOFT FOR ITS OUTSIDE
COUNSELFOR THE OUTSIDE SO THE
CALIFORNIA SEN ARLEN ORCHARD TO
MANAGE GENERAL MANAGER AND CEO
OF SACRAMENTO.
I MEAN DISABILITIES IN MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES DISTRICT MARK JOSEPH
ATTORNEY FOR THE COALITION A
CALIFORNIA UTILITY EMPLOYEES IN
JAN* ME --
JONES PRESIDENT OF THE
INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS.
SO I THINK I MISTER WEITZMAN
EUROPE FIRST.
THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M HENRY WEISSMAN I'M HERE
REPRESENTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON WANTED TO START BY
SAYING.
HOW MOVED I WAS BY SOME OF THE
COMMENTS WE JUST HEARD ABOUT THE
TWENTY SEVENTEEN FIRES AND
CERTAINLY?
MY HEART GOES OUT TO THE VICTIMS
IN THE FIREFIGHTERS WHO WERE
INVOLVED IN THAT TERRIBLE
INCIDENT.
BUT THE GOVERNOR'S BILL DOES NOT
ADDRESS TO TWENTY SEVENTEEN
STANDARD FOR THE TWENTY
SEVENTEEN FIRES THAT ADDRESSES
THE STANDARD GOING FORWARD.
A BIG PART.
LIKE IF THE I UNDERSTAND WE'RE
NOT GOING TO FINISH LET HIM
FINISH LET HIM FINISH HIS
TESTIMONY PLEASE SENATOR.
AND AYE I WAS HOPING TO MAKE
THREE POINTS THIS AFTERNOON.
FIRST TO TALK ABOUT WHY A CHANGE
TO THE STANDARD FOR INVERSE
CONDEMNATION GOING FORWARD IS
IMPORTANT FOR OUR STATE --
UNDER THE STRICT LIABILITY
STANDARD WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE
UTILITY IS LIABLE FOR ALL
PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM A WILDFIRE
IGNITED BY ITS FACILITIES.
EVEN IF THE UTILITY WAS WITHOUT
FAULT.
AND FOLLOWED ALL OF THE RULES.
AND EVEN IF THE SPREAD OF THE
FIRE WAS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES.
SUCH AS WIND AND WEATHER THAT
ARE OUTSIDE THE UTILITIES
CONTROL IN EFFECT.
THIS MAKES UTILITIES THE
INSURERS OF LAST RESORT.
THE RESULTING COSTS TO THE
UTILITIES CAN BE ENORMOUS AND
CONSEQUENCES EXTREMELY NEGATIVE.
NOT JUST FOR THE UTILITIES.
BUT ALSO FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS AND
FOR THE STATE HOUSEHOLD.
A STANDARD THAT IMPOSES
LIABILITY BASED ON WHETHER THE
UTILITY ACTED REASONABLY.
WOULD BE FAIR FOR CUSTOMERS AN
ALLIANCE LIABILITY WITH FAULT.
SECOND I'D LIKE TO TOUCH ON THE
LEGISLATURE'S CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A
REASONABLENESS STANDARD. FOR
INVERSE CONDEMNATION CASES
ARISING FROM WILDFIRES AT FIRST
I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THE
DISTINCTION.
BETWEEN THE ELIMINATION OF
INVERSE CONDEMNATION WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE CANNOT TO ON THE
CONSTITUTION.
VERSUS THE ADOPTION OF THE
STANDARD THAT WOULD BE APPLIED
TO DETERMINE WHEN INVERSE
LIABILITY EXISTS AND THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT THE LEGISLATURE
DEFINITELY DOES HAVE A ROLAND.
AS PROFESSOR WARRANT TESTIFIED
LAST WEEK.
THE CALIFORNIA RICK SUPREME
COURT HAS REPEATEDLY SAID.
THAT THE COURTS MUST GIVE GREAT
WEIGHT. TO THE LEGISLATURE'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION UNLESS THAT
INTERPRETATION.
IS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE
LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION
ANOTHER WORDS WHEN THE
CONSTITUTION IS AMBIGUOUS.
AND CAN BE INTERPRETED IN
VARIOUS WAYS.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE
PREROGATIVE TO SELECT AN
INTERPRETATION AND THE COURTS
WILL GIVE GREAT WEIGHT TO THAT
CHOICE AND THAT'S ESPECIALLY
TRUE.
WHEN THAT INTERPRETATION IS
BASED ON POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
WITH THE LAW WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE IS BETTER POSITION
THAN THE COURTS TO MAKE?
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON
CONVERSE CON CONDEMNATION.
IS AMBIGUOUS ON THE STANDARD OF
LIABILITY.
THE LANGUAGE SILENCE ON THAT
QUESTION THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT.
HAS SUPPLIED THREE DIFFERENT
STANDARDS OVER TIME.
ORIGINALLY THE STANDARD WAS THAT
THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE LIABLE
IN INVERSE CONDEMNATION ONLY ONE
A PRIVATE PARTY COULD BE LIABLE
IN OTHER WORDS ONLY IF THERE WAS
NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL
CONDUCT.
THEN THE COURT ADOPTED A STRICT
LIABILITY STANDARD.
AND LATER STILL THE COURT%
ADOPTED A REASONABLENESS
STANDARD IN THE FLOOD CONTROL
CASES.
OR I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZETHAT
THERE'S TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS
HERE ONE IS DOES THE LEGISLATURE
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT AN
INTERPRETATION THAT IS.
IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE
CONSTITUTION BROAD ENOUGH TO
PERMIT THE ADOPTION OF A
REASONABLENESS STANDARD.
CLEARLY THE ANSWER IS YES SUITS
ARE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS OVER TIME BY THE
CALIFORNIA COURTS.
AS WELL AS INTERPRETATIONS BY
OTHER STATES A SECOND QUESTION
IS SHOULD.
WE LEGISLATOR ADOPT A
REASONABLENESS STANDARD AND HERE
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE BALANCE
OF INTERESTS THAT WAS UNDERLYING
THE FLOOD CONTROL CASES IS
CERTAINLY RELEVANT BUT
FUNDAMENTALLY.
THAT IS THE POLICY QUESTION THAT
THIS BODY THE LEGISLATURE IS
CALLED UPON TO MAKE AND WHEN THE
COURTS MADE THESE DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT STANDARD SHOULD BE
APPLIED.
THEY WERE DOING SO BASED ON
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS BUT
WITHOUT GUIDANCE FROM THE
LEGISLATURE.
IT IS THE LEGISLATURE'S ROLE
UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM
TO MAKE POLICY JUDGMENTS.
AND THE COURTS ARE VERY INCLINED
TO DEFER TO THOSE
DETERMINATIONS.
A REASONABLENESS STANDARD FOR
INVERSE CONDEMNATION CASES
INVOLVING WILDFIRES.
ALLIANCE WITH THE INTERPRETATION
THAT THE COURT ADOPTED IN THOSE
FLOOD CONTROL CASES AND IS
SUPPORTED BY SIMILAR POLICY
RATIONALES.
WILDFIRE RISKS REQUIRE A
BALANCING OF THE BENEFITS OF
EXTENDING ELECTRIC SERVICE TO
ALL AREAS OF THE STATE.
AGAINST THE RISKS THAT THOSE
FACILITIES MIDNIGHT A FIRE AT
FINALLY I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE
THAT.
THESE THE SHIFT FROM A STRICT
LIABILITY STANDARD TO A
REASONABLENESS STANDARD.
WOULD NOT RESULT IN ADVERSE
INCENTIVES TO MAINTAIN THE
SAFETY AND RELIABILITY OF THE
SYSTEM UTILITIES.
UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
COULD STILL BE HELD LIABLE IF
THEY ACTED NEGLIGENTLY.
COULD BE HELD LIABLE IF THEY
ACTED UNREASONABLY.
AND IS COULD STILL BE PENALIZED
BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION IF THEY VIOLATE THE
RULES SO THE UTILITIES WILL
STILL HAVE THE INCENTIVE.
AND INDEED WILL REMAIN SUBJECT
TO THE SUPERVISION AND
REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION
WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT THAT WAS
DISCUSSED ON TUESDAY THANK YOU
[inaudible]
TORTURE.
I THINK I'M SECOND PART WELL
BORROWING ORCHARD.
LETS I SAID WELL I'M SORRY FOR
GOOD.
COLLEGE EYES GERMAN DODD
CHAIRMAN HOLDEN A MEMBERS THE
COMMITTEE M. ARLEN ORCHARD AND
I'M THE CEO IN GENERAL MANAGER
SMUD WHERE THE NATION'S SIX
LARGEST COMMUNITY OWNED ELECTRIC
SERVICE PROVIDER SECOND LARGEST
IN CALIFORNIA.
WE SERVE THE ONE POINT FIVE
MILLION RESIDENTS IN SACRAMENTO
COUNTY AND SMALL --
JOINING PORTIONS OF YELLOW.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HERE TODAY.
WE APPRECIATE THE LEADERSHIP OF
BOTH THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE
LEGISLATURE ON THIS --
CRITICAL MATTER WHAT SACRAMENTO
COUNTY IS DESIGNATED AS LOW RISK
FOR FIRE ARE SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY
EIGHT MEGAWATT HYDROELECTRIC.
PROJECT IN EL DORADO COUNTY IS
LOCATED ON FEDERAL LAND INCLUDES
FIFTY EIGHT MILES OF
TRANSMISSION LINES AS AND IS IN
A DESIGNATED HIGH FIRE RISK
AREA.
SMITH IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN
EFFORTS TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF
WILDFIRES AND I WON'T REPORT THE
LONG LIST OF MEASURES WE ARE
TAKING --
BUT THEY'RE LARGELY CONSISTENT
WITH WHAT THE COMMITTEE HEARD
FROM THE INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES --
AT TUESDAY'S HEARING WE HAD
FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE WITH
DEVASTATING WILDFIRES.
THE KING FIRE IN TWO THOUSAND
AND FOURTEEN CAME VERY CLOSE TO
OUR HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES
OVER TWENTY FOUR DAYS IT BURNED
MORE THAN NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND
ACRES.
WE SHARE A TRANSMISSION LINE
RIGHT OF WAY WITH PGDM PRIOR TO
THE CAMPFIRE WE WORKED WITH
PROPERTY OWNERS TO EXPAND
VEGETATION CLEARANCES.
OUTSIDE OF OUR RIGHT OF WAY IT
WAS NOT EASY I WILL TELL YOU TO
GET AGREEMENT FROM THE PROPERTY
OWNERS BUT CAL FIRE INDICATED
THAT THIS EXPANDED FIREBREAK WAS
THE SINGLE FACTOR THAT HELD THE
FIRE BACK.
FROM THE APPLE HILL ORCHARDS AND
ECONOMIC CENTRE EAST TO
PLACERVILLE WITH MORE THAN
THIRTY ORCHARDS WINERIES
BREWERIES AND CHRISTMAS TREE
FARMS.
AS WE COME TO GRIPS WITH OUR
CHANGING CLIMATE INCLUDING
DROUGHT AND I'M PRESIDENT
WILDFIRES WE MUST ALL DO MORE
WORK TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITIES
WE SERVE.
AS SUCH WE ENCOURAGE THE STATE
AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
IMPLEMENT MORE ROBUST FIRE IN
FORCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
SUMMIT SUPPORTS A SOLUTION THAT
REQUIRES A UTILITIES TO DO MORE
TO ADOPT MORE EXPANSIVE WILDFIRE
PREVENTION PLANTS AND STRENGTH
CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION OF ELECTRICAL LINES
AND EQUIPMENT.
SMART ENOUGH OTHER UTILITY
SHOULD REMAIN LIABLE FOR WHILE
FAR COSTS WHEN WERE FAULT THAT'S
ONLY FAIR.
HARBOR UTILITIES SHOULD NOT BE
HELD STRICTLY LIABLE FOR WILD
FOR DAMAGES WHEN UTILITY ACTED
REASONABLY AND RESPONSIBLY AND
MET ALL APPLICABLES STANDARDS
FOR EXAMPLE UNDER EXISTING LAW.
* COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR A
FIRE CAUSED BY A TREE LIMB FROM
OUTSIDE OUR RIGHT OF WAY BLOWING
INTO A POWER LINE.
EVEN IF WE'D MET ALL SAFETY.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN
TRINITY COUNTY WITH THE AUGUST
TWENTY SEVENTEEN ELENA FIRE.
ACCORDING TO THE US FOREST
SERVICE THE WHOLE IN A FIRE
WHICH BURNED MORE THAN TWICE --
NEARLY TWENTY TWO THOUSAND ACRES
AND DESTROYED TWENTY TWO
RESIDENCES WAS CAUSED BY A
BRANCH FROM A TREE WELL OUTSIDE
THE UTILITY EASEMENT FALLING ON
A TRINITY PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT LINE.
IF TRENDY IS LINE IS FOUNDED THE
IGNITION SOURCE STRICT LIABILITY
WILL APPLY AND TRINITY'S
CUSTOMERS MANY OF WHOM ARE LOW
WHO ARE LOW INCOME WILL BEAR
THAT FULL FINANCIAL BURDEN.
WELL WE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF
THE PERSONAL DEVASTATION
INFLICTED ON EACH AND EVERY
MEMBER OF A COMMUNITY IMPACTED
BY WILDFIRE.
WE MUST ALSO BE MINDFUL OF THE
INEQUITIES THAT RESULT FROM
SHIFTING THESE COST UTILITIES
REGARDLESS OF FAULT.
UNLIKE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES
PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITIES LIKES
MUD DON'T HAVE SHAREHOLDERS TO
BEAR THE COST OF THE DAMAGES
INFLICTED BY THE CATASTROPHIC
FIRE.
ARE ONLY RECOURSE IS TO COLLECT
FROM OUR CUSTOMERS WITH THOSE
COSTS HAVING A DISPROPORTIONATE
IMPACT ON THOSE LEAST LIKELY TO
AFFORD IT INCLUDING LOW INCOME
CUSTOMERS.
THE ELDERLY AND RENTERS IN MAJOR
WILDFIRE LIKE RECENT FIRES
ELSEWHERE IN CALIFORNIA COULD
CAUSE* ELECTRIC RATES TO
JUMP BY 25%.
ESPECIALLY SMALL PO USE COULD BE
DRIVEN INTO BANKRUPTCY.
WHAT SMOG RETAINS WILDFIRE
INSURANCE TO PROTECT AGAINST THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE
CATASTROPHIC FIRE STRICT
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES HAS CAUSED
WHILE FOR INSURANCE RATES TO
SKYROCKET?
ARE WILD FOR INSURANCE COSTS FOR
THE COMING YEAR ARE FOUR TIMES
HIGHER THAN A YEAR AGO.
OUR ENVIRONMENT WILL ALSO SUFFER
IF THE COST OF WHILE FOR DAMAGES
ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH NEGLIGENCE
IN UTILITIES CONTINUE TO BE HELD
STRICTLY LIABLE.
HIGHER INSURANCE COSTS IN PAIN
CLAIMS WHEN NOT AT FAULT WILL
DIVERT UTILITY INVESTMENTS AWAY
FROM OUR AGGRESSIVE RENEWABLE
ENERGY AND GHG REDUCTION GOALS.
NOW MORE THAN EVER AS WILDFIRES
RECAP BACK ON OUR ENVIRONMENT WE
MUST DEPEND ON A RELIABLE
ELECTRIC SYSTEM TO MEET OUR
CLEAN AIR GOALS.
WE MUST ACT SWIFTLY AND
THOUGHTFULLY TO ADDRESS THIS
URGENT MATTER WE MUST HOLD
NEGLIGENT PARTIES RESPONSIBLE
FOR DAMAGES AND ENCOURAGE
INCREASED WILDFIRE PREVENTION
PLANNING ACTIVITIES.
BUT WE MUST ALSO REFORM STRICT
LIABILITY STANDARDS FOR
UTILITIES THAT IT ACT REASONABLY
RESPONSIBLY TO PROTECT OUR
CUSTOMERS COMMUNITY CENTER
ENVIRONMENT SENATE SUPPORTS THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL ONE
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK OUT FOR DINNER QUESTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
YOUR TESTIMONY MISTER JOSEPH.
THANK YOU TO CARE MEMBERS AND
TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY AGAIN.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION OF CALIFORNIA TOLD
EMPLOYEES.
I WANT TO START OFF BY FOCUSING
OUT CLEARLY AND WHAT THE ISSUE
IS HERE AND WHAT THE ISSUE IS
NOT.
WITH INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND
ITS ASSOCIATES STRICT LIABILITY
THE ISSUE IS.
SHOULD VICTIMS OF A FUTURE
WILDFIRE THAT'S CAUSED BY
UTILITY EQUIPMENT WITH THE
UTILITY DID NOTHING WRONG.
AUTOMATICALLY GET DAMAGES FROM
THE UTILITY.
THE ISSUE IS NOT.
IS THEIR LIABILITY WHEN THE
UTILITY WAS NEGLIGENT NOBODY'S
DISPUTING THAT.
AND UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL THE ISSUE IS NOT
ANYTHING ABOUT THE TWENTY
SEVENTEEN FIRES OR BAIL OUT OF
P. GINNY.
FOR TWENTY SEVENTEEN IT'S ABOUT
FUTURE FIRES WITH UTILITY DID
NOTHING WRONG.
AND THE QUESTION IS SHOULD THEY
NEVER LESS HAVE TO PAY AUTOMATIC
DAMAGES.
WELL WHEN A COMPANY PAYS
AUTOMATIC DAMAGES TO SOMEONE AND
DID NOTHING WRONG THAT'S
INSURANCE.
SHOULD THE UTILITY BE THE
INSURER HERE OR SHOULD INSURANCE
COMPANIES BE THE INSURERS.
OF COURSE THE VICTIMS NEED TO BE
MADE WHOLE THE QUESTION IS BY
WHOM.
NOW IT WOULD CLEARLY HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH UNDERINSURED AND
UNINSURED PEOPLE.
BUT WEHAVE THE PROBLEM WITH THE
CURRENT FIRES THAT ARE GOING NOW
ON NIGHT NOW.
THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
UTILITIES AND WE HAVE TO ADDRESS
THAT PROBLEM [inaudible]
BUT HERE.
SAYING THAT THE UTILITY SHOULD
BE THE INSURER FOR SOME FUTURE
FIRES IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE
POLICY.
THAT'S THE STATE WILL POLICY FOR
THREE REASONS [inaudible]
FIRST.
IT'S GOING TO RESULT IN MORE
FIRES NOT LESS.
ON TUESDAY I TESTIFIED AND OTHER
PEOPLE TESTIFIED ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF HARDENING THE
SYSTEM ABOUT THINGS LIKE MICRO
GRIDS AND STRONGER CONDUCTORS.
AND STRONGER POLLS AND BETTER
WEATHER FORECASTING IN A NUMBER
OF OTHER THINGS.
THEY ALL COST MONEY.
IT'S WORTH IT.
BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE LOTS OF
UTILITY INVESTMENT.
AND UTILITIES CAN'T RAISE THE
MONEY TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT TO
MAKE THE AT THE SYSTEM SAFER.
IF THEY'RE SPENDING THEIR MONEY
PAYING INSURANCE CLAIMS.
IT WILL BE MUCH BETTER TO SPEND
THE MONEY ON PREVENTION RATHER
THAN MAKING UTILITIES THE
INSURERS.
LET'S HAVE THE UTILITIES MAKE
THEIR SYSTEM IS BETTER AND
INSURANCE COMPANIES MAKE
INSURANCE BETTER.
SECOND REASON UTILITIES CAN'T BE
THE INSURERS.
REPAIRS CAN AFFORD IT.
RATEPAYERS CANNOT BE THE IT FIRE
INSURERS FOR THE STATE.
NOW IT'S VERY TEMPTING TO SAY
THE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD
PAY THE VICTIMS NOT THE RATE
PAYERS.
AND THAT'S THE LAW WHEN THE
UTILITY WAS NOT REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT.
AND NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THAT
SHOULD BE CHANGED.
AND THE COUNTRY AND TUESDAY.
I SAID THAT WE SHOULD USE THE
UTILITY SAFETY PLANS AS THE
STANDARD TO DETERMINE IF UTILITY
WAS NEGLIGENT.
BUT EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT
SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD BE THE
INSURER IT WILL STILL END UP
COSTING THE RATEPAYERS.
WE'VE HEARD IT SEVERAL TIMES
TODAY ALREADY THEIR BOND STATUS
IS NOW ONE STEP ABOVE JUNK BOND
STATUS IT ALREADY COSTING
RATEPAYERS MORE MONEY IN
FINANCING COSTS.
BECAUSE THE HIGHER COST OF
BORROWING.
IF WE DON'T FIX STRICT LIABILITY
IT WILL BE EVENMORE EXPENSIVE
TO RAISE THE DEBT AND EQUITY
FINANCING NECESSARY.
AND RATEPAYERS WILL BE PAYING
THOSE COSTS.
SO READ THIS REALLY NO WAY
AROUND IT IF THE UTILITY HAS
STRICT LIABILITY.
IT IS AN INSURER AND IT WILL
COST RATEPAYERS.
A THIRD REASON WHY UTILITIES
CAN'T BE THE INSURERS.
IT WILL UNDERMINE CALIFORNIA
POLICIES.
WE'VE GOT THE RP A SYSTEM WHICH
HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL.
AND IS IT WORK BECAUSE THE
UTILITIES HAVE SIGNED CONTRACTS
WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY
DEVELOPERS.
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF THOSE
CONTRACTS YOU CAN'T DO IT IF
YOU'RE ALSO SPEND YOUR MONEY ON
INSURANCE AND YOU DON'T HAVE
CREDIT.
WE GOT ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAMS EVERY YEAR THE UTILITY
SPENT A BILLION DOLLARS AND
ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO RAISE
MONEY TO DO THAT.
WE'RE NOW IN PARKING AND THE THE
MOST IMPORTANT REMAINING LEG OF
OUR CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY THAT
IS ELECTRIFYING TRANSPORTATION.
UTILITIES HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED
ALREADY TO SPEND ABOUT A BILLION
DOLLARS TO BUILD UP THAT
CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE
NEED THERE ARE MORE APPLICATIONS
PENDING.
THEY CAN'T DO IT IF I HAVE TO
SPEND THEIR MONEY INSURANCE.
IT WOULD BE A TRAGIC OUTCOME.
IF CALIFORNIA CLIMATE POLICIES
BECOME A BIG VITIM OF WILDFIRES
THAT ARE DRIVEN BY CLIMATE
CHANGE [inaudible]
FINALLY.
WITH A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE
PREVIOUS HEARINGS WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT EXPANDING BIOMASS
GENERATION. TO GET THOSE PLANTS
BUILT.
WE NEEDED TO LEASES SIGNED
CONTRACTS TO BY THE ELECTRICITY.
UTILITIES ARE NOT FINANCIALLY
HEALTHY THEY CAN'T SIGN THOSE
CONTRACTS IN THE CAPITAL'S
PLANTS BUILT.
SO DON'T BE DISTRACTED.
FIXING STRICT LIABILITY IS NOT
BAILING OUT THE UTILITY.
IT'S SPENDING MONEY ON
PREVENTION INSTEAD OF ON
INSURANCE IT'S PROTECTING
RATEPAYERS.
AND IS PROTECTING CALIFORNIA
CLIMATE POLICIES [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU --
MISTER SMARTY JONES [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I I
THINK MISTER JOSEPH HIT SOME OF
THE POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE I'M
CHANCE BUT HE JONES WITH THE
INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS --
AND I REALLY DO UNDERSTAND THE
GRAVITY OF THIS --
THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE HERE
--
AND MY PURPOSES YOU KNOW MY MY
ASSOCIATION US ALL OF US HAVE
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH
WILDFIRES MY MEMBER COMPANIES
HAVE --
NUMBER OF THEIR EMPLOYEES HAVE
--
ACTUALLY HAD THEIR HOMES BURNED
IN PREVIOUS OF WELL AWARE OF AS
SIGNIFICANCE OF WILDFIRES IN
THEIR IMPACT ON PEOPLE --
THE PURPOSE OF MY TESTIMONY
TODAY'S IS IT IS ACTUALLY
SOMEWHAT SECONDARY TO WHAT
YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE PREVIOUS
VOTES -- AND
IT BUILDS OFF I THINK WITH MR
JOSEPH JUST INDICATED A WHICH IS
THE IMPACT IMPLICATIONS OF
STRICT LIABILITY --
APPLICATION OF A DENVER'S
COMBINATION ON OTHER POLICIES
THAT -- THAT
THE THIS LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED
IN WHERE WE NEED TO GO IN THE
FUTURE -- WE
HAVE GENERALLY SUPPORTED THE
GOVERNOR'S --
PROPOSAL HERE LARGELY BECAUSE
HIS WORDS ON PAPER --
THAT IT BASICALLY GIVES US SOME
FOCUS TO A DEBATE WHICH ACTUALLY
IS STARTED HERE TODAY WITH
RESPECT --
TO THE ISSUES AROUND --
AROUND --
WHETHER.
TROW AREA IS CITY AND IT'S ALL
THE SILT UP TO THE LEGISLATURE
TO SORT THAT OUT AND FIGURE OUT
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
HELPFUL OR NOT WITH RESPECT TO
THE COURTS BEING ABLE TO REVIEW
THIS IN THE FUTURE --
WE BELIEVE OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY
SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR
ACT ACTIONS OR IN ACTIONS THAT
THEY'VE ACTUALLY DONE --
SO WE'RE NOT THAT BASICALLY
ASKING FOR ANY SAYS TYPE OF
IMMUNITY AS MANY OF YOU KNOW --
WE REPRESENT A BROAD RANGE OF
THAT TECHNOLOGIES BIOMASS WIND
SOLAR GEOTHERMAL --
AND AND NATURAL GAS THESE
PROJECTS HAVE LARGELY BEEN BUILT
--
BY A CALIFORNIA POLICIES --
AND ARE BASICALLY --
BUILT UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE
STATE'S UTILITIES SO WE'RE VERY
SENSITIVE TO FINANCIAL STABILITY
HERE -- THE
POLICIES THAT THIS GUY IS
LEGISLATURE'S ADOPTED TO ADDRESS
CLIMATE CHANGE ARE EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT AND THEY ARE IN FACT
WORKING.
US ARRAY NOW THE ELECTRIC SECTOR
IS 29% BELOW NINETEEN NINETY
LEVELS WITH RESPECT TO ITS
CARBON EMISSIONS ARE OUR PS
POLICIES IS 30% --
BASICALLY RETAIL SALES CURRENTLY
WE'RE GOING 250% BY --
TWENTY THIRTY WE'VE GOT A NUMBER
OF OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE
DESIGNED AROUND --
ROOFTOP APPLICATIONS DEMAND
RESPONSE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS
VERY IMPORTANT --
AS INDICATED EARLIER ALL --
THE UTILITIES.
THE THAT'S OCCURRING RIGHT NOW
--
WITH RESPECT TO THE RATING
AGENCIES ALL THREE HAVE BEEN
DOWNGRADED THIS GOES DOWN HILL
ONE OF MY MEMBER COMPANIES TOPAZ
SOLAR WAS DOWNGRADED BECAUSE PGD
WAS DOWNGRADED --
AND ARE BASICALLY --
THERE DUH FUTURE CREDIT RATING
IS IS CONTINGENT UPON WHERE PGD
ENDS UP --
SO BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE'RE HOPEFUL HERE IS A WORK F
THE COULD COMMITTEE NOT ONLY ON
THIS ISSUE BUT AND THE YOUR
GENERAL WORK.
BASICALLY HELP STABILIZE SOME OF
THE UNCERTAINTY THAT'S OUT THERE
--
I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT ALL OF
THESE COSTS --
THAT AS THESE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH FALL --
WITH A CREDIT RATINGS FALLING.
RATE PAYERS PAY MORE THEY'RE
GOING TO PAY MORE FOR RENEWABLE
PROJECTS TO GOING TO PAY MORE
FOR THE REPLACEMENT POLLS ARE
GOING TO PAY MORE FOR ELECTRIC
VEHICLES --
ELECTRIC BILL.
OKAY IS THAT --
THERE THERE IT ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER THE RATEPAYERS ARE A PIECE
OF THIS AND I THINK AS MISTER --
ORCHARD HAS INDICATED I MISS MY
CUSTOMER I RECOGNIZED EFFECTIVE
SMUD I HAS A FIRE IN THEIR
TRANSMISSION LINE I IS A RATE
PAYER OF* ARE ARE GOING TO
PICK P THE PIECES THAT.
ARE THE DIFFERENCES AND I THINK
MR FISKE APPOINTED ON A VERY
IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE
I USE HAVE THE THE P. YOU SEE
STANDING BETWEEN THEM AND
ABILITY AUTOMATICALLY PASSES ON
SO IT IT IS WHAT IT IS THAT'S
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN --
AND SO I THINK --
THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO IS TO
SEE IF WE CAN --
TRIED TO ADDRESS SOME THE
SHORTCOMINGS ONE OF THE AREAS
THAT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON
AS WE ARE YPERSENSITIVE TO THE
ISSUE OF BANKRUPTCY.
BUT UTILITY GOES BANKRUPT AND I
KNOW THE PEOPLE ARE SUGGESTING
THAT THAT WILL NEVERHAPPEN IT
HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST WE'RE
MINDFUL OF IT HAPPENS IN THE
FUTURE.
THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THE
CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN
EXECUTED WITH MY MEMBER
COMPANIES LARGE NUMBER OF THEM
WILL GO AWAY.
BANKRUPTCY --
JUDGES AND REFEREES IT IS THIS
THAT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THAT
LEGISLATURE'S PUT FORWARD THEIR
JOB IS TO CREDITORS AND
OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO AVOID THAT
SO -- THE
LONG TERM IMPACTS OF SUCH AN
OUTCOME WOULD HAVE DEVASTATING
IMPACTS I THINK OVERALL AND SO
THE POLICY --
OBJECTIVES WE HAVE A AND HERE SO
YOU KNOW IN CLOSING HERE THE
REALITY IS IS THAT THERE'S A
THERE'S A LOT OF TALK THAT --
I MUST GET TO SENSE THAT DID
THEIR PARTY SAID BELIEVE THERE'S
SOME SORT OF MAGIC MONEY OUT
THERE THERE ISN'T ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER THIS MONEY IS GOING TO BE
WHETHER IT'S DIRECTLY PAID BY
THE RATE PAYERS OR WHETHER IT'S
PAID BY INCREASED INSURANCE
COSTS.
OR IF THE UTILITIES GO AWAY --
WHATEVER REPLACES THEM --
THIS IS A MAJOR PUBLIC PROBLEM
THAT WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER
AND THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO
FIGURE THAT OUT AND AGAIN NO ONE
IS TALKING ABOUT LEADING THE
UTILITIES OFF THE HOOK --
WE WERE HOPING THAT LEGISLATIVE
GUIDANCE WOULD HELP COURTS
MOVING FORWARD WE RECOGNIZE THE
FACT THAT THERE IS A DIVISION OF
GOVERNMENT HERE AND IF IT'S YOU
KNOW.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL I'M SURE YOU'LL
BE TOLD --
AND YOU KNOW HOPEFULLY THE IT
WOULD WE ARE MAIN GOAL HERE IS.
THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE NEEDS
TO BASICALLY STABILIZE THE
MARKETS --
AND WE ARE EXPECTATIONS IS A
HARDENING OF THE COOLEY UP
POLICIES THAT --
TO RESULT IN AND I THINK AND
WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE --
TO THE MEETING THE NEEDS OF FIRE
VICTIMS THANK THANK YOU
[inaudible]
CENTER HUESO [inaudible]
AND CERTAIN MUCH.
OKAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH --
CENTER STONE WAS NEXT THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIR --
YOU KNOW I SEE THIS --
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE --
ACTING IN A QUASI JUDICIAL WAY
HERE.
AS WE HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY AS WE
HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF OF PRIOR
PANELS [inaudible]
AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.
THERE ARE SOME HERE THAT HAVE
BETTER TOOLS --
EDUCATION LATER TO GUIDE US
THROUGH THE PROCESS SO I SEE
THINGS.
AS THE PHARMACISTS LITTLE BIT
MORE KIND OF BLACK AND WHITE.
AND I I CAN TELL YOU THAT AS A A
GUIDE HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR
MYSELF FOR THIRTY FIVE YEARS.
AND PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST
OVER REGULATED PROFESSIONS THAT
BEING PHARMACY AND THEN COMPOUND
PHARMACY AND THEN STERILE
COMPOUND PHARMACY THAT.
IF I DIDN'T --
CHANGE.
THE PRACTICE LETTER I'VE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH. FOR TWENTY FIVE
YEARS IDEA TO BUSINESS
[inaudible]
AND SO --
MISTER WEISSMAN A COUPLE OF
ISSUES I'D LIKE.
TO SHARE WITH YOU AND GET YOUR
YOUR RESPONSE.
THE FIRST ONE IS SAYING YOU HAD
MENTIONED --
THE ON THE GOVERNOR'S --
A LINE IN THE SAND DISCUSSING
TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN AND
AND I FIND THAT.
RATHER OFFENSIVE BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT WE'VE HAD A A SIGNIFICANT
LOSS OF PROPERTY IN LIFE AND IN
MY COLLEAGUES DISTRICT AND THE
IN MANSIO.
AND I THINK THAT THE PANEL
BEFORE.
OF THE CONSUMER ATTORNEY MADE A
VERY GOOD CASE THAT.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT INVERSE
CONDEMNATION OR TALKING ABOUT
INTENDED USE AS DESIGNED?
NOW THAT'S NOT.
IN ONE MOMENT IN TIME.
THAT IS PROBABLY EIGHT LIVING.
SCENARIO WHERE WE HAVE TO ADJUST
WITH THE TIMES MY COLLEAGUE
BRINGS UP THE FACT THAT WE HAVE
CLIMATE CHANGE WE DO.
AND I THINK THAT'S INCUMBENT ON
THE UTILITIES.
TO REBUILD MODIFY.
SO THAT THE INTENDED USE IS
DESIGNED TO TO CONVEY
ELECTRICITY.
AND TO ENSURE MAXIMUM SAFETY.
OF FOR THE RESIDENTS.
THAT NEED THAT ELECTRICITY
[inaudible]
SO.
THERE WAS A HORRIFIC EVENT IN
SAN DIEGO IN TWO THOUSAND AND
SEVEN AND WE DIDN'T HAVE I WAS
IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT TIME.
A LITTLE BOARD SUPERVISORS BUT
NINE SANDY UP IN RIVERSIDE
COUNTY.
BUT I DON'T KNOW ADDRESS DGT
CAME HERE REQUESTING THAT WE WE
CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUT THEY DID
WAS.
THEY SAID OKAY.
WE'D UP WE GOT BURNED NO NO NO
PUN INTENDED HERE IT'S GOING TO
COST US THE THREE HUNDRED
SEVENTY EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS
AND SOME SOME DAMAGES THAT --
OF ORGAN UP TO COME UP WITH THAT
KIND OF FUNNY FUNDING
[inaudible]
AND BUT WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE
WAY WE DO BUSINESS.
AND SO THEY EMBRACED ON A
BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF
TECHNOLOGY OVER TEN YEARS SO
HUNDRED MILLION A YEAR. TO
SAFEGUARD THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE
SO THEY DID NOT HAVE TO RELIVE
THAT.
THAT FUTURE PROBLEM AGAIN THAT
WAS THE DRIVING FORCE OBVIOUSLY
THE PAIN OF THAT.
HORRIFIC FIRE TO ENSURE THAT.
THESE INCIDENTS DON'T HAPPEN
AGAIN.
AND OUR PRESENTATION THOUGH WE
HAVE WITH PGE INANE JUST A DAY
OR TWO AGO.
IT IN THEIR PRESENTATION THEY
SAID THE PAST FIVE YEARS THAT
THEY SPENT FIFTEEN BILLION
DOLLARS.
I'VE BEEN FIFTEEN FIFTEEN TIMES
FOR THE SDG AND HE I THINK SD
DID BGT HAS DONE A FABULOUS JOB
THERE HAS BEEN ANY MORE
INCIDENTS.
I'D LIKE TO ASK.
PGD WHAT WOULD YOU SPEND THE
MONEY ON BECAUSE WE HAVE
SIGNIFICANT DEVASTATION --
THAT'S HAPPENED AND THE PAST
COUPLE OF YEARS [inaudible]
SO.
YOU DON'T INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES YOU KNOW --
M. UP PUBLICLY OWNED CAN --
UTILITIES ARE I GUESS ARE GIVEN
A GUARANTEED RATE OF RETURN MAY
GET EMINENT DOMAIN --
CAPABILITIES THEY BASICALLY
ATAXIC AUTHORITY PENDING --
RATE INCREASE BY --
THE P. UC --
BUT THERE IS NO INVESTMENT
GENTLEMAN THAT DOES NOT CARRY
ANY RISK.
AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE BEING
ASKED TO DO TODAY.
CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF ARE
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY SAID
REPRESENT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS AT THE PATH THAT
YOU'RE ASKING US TO EMBARK ON IT
IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IS ARE
CREATING THIS BIG CLOUD.
OF HOPE FOR THE UTILITIES THAT
WE ARE GOING UP PINE THE WAY
THAT YOU WANT US TO OPINE.
AND WE'RE NOT GETTING IT TO THE
VERY ISSUES THAT OUR CITIZENS AT
HOME THAT ARE LOS ARE SIXTY FIVE
HUNDRED HOMES IN THE LOSS OF A
PRECIOUS LIFE THAT WE LOST.
THAT THEY WANT TO GET DOWN TO
BUSINESS AND SAY HOW WE CAN TO
STOP THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING
AGAIN HOW WE GONNA.
YOU KNOW GET ARE FORCED BACK IN
SHAPE POVERTY CAN HAVE DO
LIABILITY STANDARDS AND AND
SAFETY STANDARDS CENTER HE'S
EVER MET MARROW WRAPPED WHO
WE'RE GONNA HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DECIDE THEY'RE NOT NOBODY'S
ASKING US TO DECIDE TODAY WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO ASK
QUESTIONS AND I WISH.
THAT YOU WOULD --
AT THIS TIME START ASKING SOME
QUESTIONS SO WE CAN PICK UP HERE
OKAY THANK YOU I APPRECIATE
THEM.
IT IS AMENABLE ALONG PROCESS WE
HAVE FIFTEEN DAYS AND I ONCE TO
MAKE PROGRESS AND I THINK THEY
WERE BEING HAMSTRUNG --
BY THIS ONE ISSUE THAT I THINK
WE SHOULD BE PUSHING ASIDE LET
THE COURTS DETERMINE NEEDS TO
GOES ABA MISTER WEISSMAN I WANT
YOU TO REACT --
TO THE CONSUMER ATTORNEY SAYS
INTENDED USE AS DESIGNED
[inaudible]
RIGHT.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT HOW YOU
DESIGN YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE TEN
YEARS AGO IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN
THE WAY YOU NEED DESIGNER
INFRASTRUCTURE TODAY
[inaudible]
AND YOUR COMPANY HAS DONE AN A
YEOMAN'S DOT JOB ACTUALLY OF A
I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT OTHER
UTILITIES HAVE DONE.
THE SAME [inaudible]
BUT IT.
HAVE YOU NOT.
PRETTY MUCH SUPPORTED WHAT.
THE CONSUMER TOURNEY'S HAVE SAID
THIS THAT YOU'VE.
YOU'VE YOU'VE YOU'VE REDEFINED
YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE AS WAS
NECESSARY FOR ITS INTENDED USE.
SENATOR --
CERTAINLY A VERY IMPORTANT PART.
OF THE OVERALLS SOLUTION IN
REACTION TO THIS GREAT THREAT.
IS FOR THE UTILITIES TO MODIFY
THEIR SYSTEMS TO IMPROVE THEM.
AND TO REDUCE THIS RISK AND AND
THAT'S ANOTHER PART OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL AND WAS
TALKED ABOUT THE DAY BEFORE
YESTERDAY.
WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT?
OUT TODAY IS THAT EVEN IF
UTILITIES TAKE ALL THOSE
ACTIONS.
AND EVEN IF THEY ARE WITHOUT
FAULT.
IT COULD NEVER THE LESS BE HELD
LIABLE UNDER THE CURRENT INVERSE
CONDEMNATION STANDARDS SO.
ARE -- WE
ARE SUPPORTING THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL. TO MODIFY.
THAT STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD
TO SHIFT TO A REASONABLENESS
STANDARD.
AT THE SAME TIME.
THAT THE UTILITIES UNDER THE
SUPERVISION IN THE CASE OF THE
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES OF THE
P. YOU SEE.
MODIFY THEIR SYSTEMS TO REDUCE
RISK.
WELL THANK YOU AYE AYE PREPAID
PRE SHOULD THAT ANSWER.
I HOPE THAT OF WE CAN COME TO A
CONCLUSION SOON ON THAT ON THIS
ISSUE.
I HINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL
EVENTUALLY THE COURTS ARE GOING
TO OPINE ON BUT WE HAVE FORTY
MILLION PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT --
WERE WERE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT.
AND AND AND THAT'S WHAT I TEND
TO DO.
AS MUCH LIKE HIM AND YOU KNOW IF
THE TWEET.
YOU KNOW --
INVERSE CONDEMNATION ISSUES WITH
THE ATTORNEYS COMING TOGETHER
BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING ONE THING
THAT YOU'RE BEING HELD
RESPONSIBLE FOR THINGS THAT
[inaudible]
YOU'RE NOT.
REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ARE
CAUSED BY EXTERNAL FACTORS AND
YET WE HAD THE ATTORNEY COME UP
AND TALK ABOUT THE CAR THAT HIT
THE POLLS SAYS YOU KNOW.
THAT YOU WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE SO
I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF
LEGAL LOOK OPINIONS AND I'M NOT
SURE THAT THIS BODY IS GOING TO
BE ABLE TO ARBITRATE THOSE
DIFFERENCES [inaudible]
ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES.
THANK YOU MISTER.
I THEIR TO COMMENTS THAT WERE
MADE.
AND I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS --
MISTER WEISMAN ONE OF THE
COMMENTS YOU MADE [inaudible]
IS THAT IF YOU CHANGE STRICT
LIABILITY TO REASONABLE
STANDARD.
THAT WOULD NOT DISINCENTIVE EYES
UTILITIES TO MAINTAIN SAFETY AND
PREVENTION.
BUT IT'S FRUSTRATING FOR ME TO
KNOW THAT.
WE HAD STRICT LIABILITY AND IT
PREVENTION WAS NOT TAKEN CARE OF
AND WE FIND OURSELVES WHO WE ARE
NOW AND IF WE LOWER THE
STANDARD.
HOW HOWARD WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE
GOING TO BE? TO DO THOSE THINGS
THAT NEED TO BE DONE FOR SAFETY
FOR PREVENTION IF.
THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INCENTIVE
BEFORE.
SO ASSEMBLY MEMBER THERE'S A FEW
RESPONSES I WOULD OFFER FIRST OF
ALL -- AGAIN.
WERE AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE
SOLUTION TO UTILITIES NEED TO
CHANGE THEIR SYSTEMS AND
PRACTICES. TO REDUCE THESE RISKS
AND AND THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT
PART.
OF THE OVERALL PROGRAM AND AND A
VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IN THE CASE
OF INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES
UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND
DIRECTION OF THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
[inaudible]
BUT I WOULD GO FURTHER AND SAY.
IF THE LEGISLATURE WERE TO ADOPT
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL ON IN
FIRST CONDEMNATION.
UTILITIES REMAIN LIABLE FOR
NEGLIGENCE AND FOR FUN
REASONABLE CONDUCT.
WHICH IS THE NORMAL WAY THAT
BUSINESSES AND AND OTHER ACTORS
IN CALIFORNIA THAT'S THE
STANDARD THAT WE ALL FOLLOW WE
WE HAVE TO AVOID ACTING IN A
NEGLIGENT.
FASHION WHAT'S UNIQUE HERE IS
THAT LIABILITY ATTACHED IS EVEN
IF UTILITIES ARE WITHOUT FAULT
AND AND THAT'S NOT A STANDARD WE
WOULD SUGGEST THAT FITS.
THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE
WERE TALKING ABOUT A VERY
SERIOUS RISK WITH VERY.
SIGNIFICANT COSTS AND
CONSEQUENCES.
BUT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE
THAT CAME BEFORETHE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AND THERE'S ALREADY
BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
GOD ARE OR ENTITIES.
THE RIGHT TO EMINENT DOMAIN --
IT TO HAVE A RATE OF RETURN.
IT THERE SO MUCH MORE.
SO THIS IS PART OF A PACKAGE AS
OPPOSED TO SIMPLY SAYING ALRIGHT
YOU ARE STRICTLY LIABLE.
MOTHERS A WHOLE LOT MORE THAT
CAME BEFORE THEM.
AND SO YOU'LL RECEIVER NOT YOU
WITH THE UTILITIES WILL RECEIVE
ALL OF THE BENEFITS OF BEING A
BECAUSE I GOVERNMENT ENTITY.
BUT NOT TO THE LIABILITY THAT
HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON THEM BY
THE CONSTITUTION SO I DON'T
UNDERSTAND I I STILL DON'T
UNDERSTAND HOW WE WOULD BE ABLE
TO DO THAT.
AND FIND IT WOULD BE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND I RECOGNIZE
THAT THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION
THERE HAS BEEN TESTIMONY ABOUT
THAT.
I STILL DON'T SEE HOW WOULD BE
CONSTITUTIONAL SO MAYBE I CAN
TRY A LITTLE BIT MORE PASSIVE
FIRST OF ALL THIS BILL WOULD NOT
MAKE A DISTINCTION.
BETWEEN MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AND
INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES.
SO THAT THAT WE'RE NOT
SUGGESTING THAT INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITIES BE TREATED
DIFFERENTLY.
THEN MUNICIPAL UTILITIES WE WE
BOTH FACE THIS PROBLEM.
IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION [inaudible]
AND THE COURTS HAVE SAID THAT
THE LEGISLATUREHASA VERY
IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY IN
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION
THE SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER
DECIDED WHAT IS THE STANDARD
THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED IN A WILD
FIRE CASE FOR INVERSE
CONDEMNATION THEY'VE NEVER
ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
AND SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO EXPRESS
ITS VIEW ABOUT WHAT'S AN
APPROPRIATE WAY TO APPROACH
INVERSE CONDEMNATION LIABILITY.
AND WE SUGGEST THAT THE
REASONABLENESS STANDARD IS.
A PERMISSIBLE CHOICE AND A WISE
CHOICE GIVEN ALL THE REASONS
YOU'VE HEARD TODAY I MIGHT SAY.
CALIFORNIA AN ALABAMA ARE THE
ONLY STATES IN THE UNION THAT
HAVE A STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD
FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND IN
ALABAMA THAT DID NOT COME UP.
IN A WILDFIRE CONTEXT EVERY
OTHER STATES THE MAJORITY OF THE
STATES IMPOSE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION ONLY IF THERE'S
INTENTIONAL CONDUCT.
AND A MINORITY OF STATES IMPOSE
IT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS.
NEGLIGENT.
BUT THERE'S NO OTHER STATE OTHER
THAN CAP AND AND THAT THERE ARE
STE ACTUALLY SOME DECISIONS FROM
OTHER STATES THAT HAVE REJECTED
INVERSE CONDEMNATION CLAIMS AND
WILDFIRE CASES.
CALIFORNIA IS THE ONLY STATE
THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT HAS
PERMITTED THOSE CLAIMS TO GO
FORWARD UNDER STRICT LIABILITY
STANDARD.
SO THAT'S A SITUATION WHERE THE
LEGISLATURE CAN EXERCISE ITS
PREROGATIVE TO STEP IN AND SAY
WE FEEL BASED ON ALL THESE
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS YOU'VE
HEARD.
THAT A REASONABLENESS STANDARD
IS MORE APPROPRIATE.
AND WE THINK THE COURTS WOULD
UPHOLD THAT CHOICE.
AT THE MISTER NOT JUST BROKE
JUST TO CLARIFY COMMENCEMENT
CLARIFYING THAT [inaudible]
BECAUSE IT DIDN'T ON THAT ANSWER
RIGHT THERE LOOK AT REAL BRIEFLY
TAKE TWO SECONDS.
SO ARE YOU SAYINGTHAT BECAUSE
I'VE NEVER HEARD YOU TAKE TWO
SECONDS.
SECOND [inaudible]
YOU HAVE.
I DO WE HAVE THE I GUESS THE
QUESTION IF I MAY FINISH MY
QUESTION SIR THANK YOU SENATOR.
DIDN'T THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT DID JUST ISSUE --
A DENIAL TO PJ AND THESE --
PETITION TO OVERRULE THE LOWER
COURT DECISION.
SPECIFICALLY ON INVERSE
CONDEMNATION --
FROM THE BUTTE FIRE LAST NIGHT
THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION.
YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AND
CHARGES.
IT WOULD.
A GOOD ESL OFFER THREE
OBSERVATIONS ON THAT.
THEY FIRST OF FOR IF I MAY NOT A
FIRST JUST TO CLARIFY THE
SUPREME COURT'S ACTION WAS NOT A
DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE
CASE.
THEY SIMPLY EXERCISE THEIR
PREROGATIVE NOT TO REVIEW THE
CASE SECOND THE ISSUE THAT WAS
PRESENTED IN THAT CASE WAS NOT
WHETHER THE REASONABLENESS
STANDARD SHOULD BE APPLIED.
THE ISSUE IN THAT CASE WAS
PITCHING HE ARGUED THAT INVERSE
CONDEMNATION SHOULD NOT BE
APPLIED TO IT BECAUSE IN LIGHT
OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN
THE SAN DIEGO CASE.
IT WASN'T A SHIRT OF THE ABILITY
TO PASS THROUGH THOSE COSTS
RIGHT THANK YOU --
CENTER CANNELLA [inaudible]
OKAY.
YES VERY SIMPLY THAT IF THE
OTHER STATES [inaudible]
CAN -- DO
WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND BETWEEN
ALABAMA CALIFORNIA TWO
DIFFERENT.
ARE IDENTICAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE
A LAW THAT LIMITS STRICT
LIABILITY.
AND IT'S BEEN UPHELD
CONSTITUTIONALLY DOES THAT MEAN
THAT WE CAN DO THE SAME THING AS
THE OTHER STATES YES.
YES IN FACT THERE'S A CASE.
JUST BRIEFLY THERE'S A
CALIFORNIA CASE THAT SAYS WHERE
THERE'S COURTS THAT HAVE DECIDED
THE ISSUE IN DIFFERENT WAYS THE
LEGISLATURE CAN PICK ONE OF
THOSE WAYS.
AND THAT WILL BE UPHELD AS BEING
WITHIN THE LEGISLATURE'S
AUTHORITY [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
SENATE CANNELLA.
THEY'VE SHERMAN SO JUST BRIEFLY
AT THE END OF THIS IN VERSE CHO
NATION I I FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD
BE THE LAST THING WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S
JUST IS TAKEN UP ABOVE.
YOU KNOW ALL THE SPACE BUT I I
THINK THE REASON IT'S IMPORTANT
WE TALK ABOUT IT REGARDLESS OF
IF WE ACTUALLY DON'T ACT.
WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT ES DE
JEANNIE AND AND HOW THEY'RE THE
THE CO THE POSTER CHILD FOR HOW
TO DO THINGS RIGHT.
WELL THEY WERE RECENTLY I GUESS
WE'RE RIESLING FORM THAT THEY'RE
GOING AND WITH LESS THIS IS
DEALT WITH THEY'RE GONNA BE
DOWNGRADED --
THREE THREE STEPS OR WHATEVER
YOU CALL IT SO THAT'S GONNA COST
AS MUCH I THINK THAT'S THE
REASON WE TALK ABOUT AGAIN THAT
I'D RATHER BE TALKING ABOUT HOW
WE DEAL WITH THESE FIRES AND HOW
DO WE FUEL MANAGEMENT ALL THAT
BUT I TRUST OUR OUR CO CHAIRS
THAT.
WE WILL GET TO THAT.
BUT DO A QUESTION SO THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEY WAS VERY STE
MISTRIAL YOU BASICALLY SAID THE
GUY FROM IF YOU SEE MISLED US
WHEN HE WAY TESTIFIED.
SO CAN YOU TALK ABOUTTHE THIS
INVERSE CORRELATION INTO MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS IN AND AGAIN
ABOT ATTORNEY.
THAT IF P. GINNY OR ARE YOU TO
LOOK UP IS 1% RESPONSIBLE --
AND THEY HAVE TO PAY A HUNDRED
SO THE COST IS THAT ACTORS THAT
NOT ACCURATE THE LEGAL STANDARD
IS TO HAVE TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL
BECAUSE WHAT'S WHAT'S
SUBSTANTIAL.
AND THAT'S A CASE BY CASE
DETERMINATION ROUGHLY I MEAN
APPROXIMATELY --
I WOULD SAY IT'S LESS THAN 50%
LESS OKAY SO SOFA TRUCK HIT A
POLE AND AND SORT OF FIRE THEY
WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THEM I DON'T KNOW ABOUT A TRUCK
AT A POLL BUT I GIVE YOU I'LL
GIVE YOU ANOTHER CASE --
WITCHES LET'S.
I'M CERTAINLY SPEAK OVER YOU --
THIS IS THE SITUATION MISTER
ARCHER BROUGHT UP WHERE THERE IS
A TREE BRANCH THAT'S NOT WITHIN
THE RIGHT AWAY NOT WITHIN THE
CURRENT SOUND THAT FLOWS INTO
THE LINE.
AND THE FIRE STARTS AND IT
SPREADS TO A LARGE AREA.
THAT WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE
INVERSE CONDEMNATION WOULD BE
APPLIED EVEN THOUGH THE UTILITY
WAS WITHOUT FAULT [inaudible]
I THINK THANK YOU A CENTER BASE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MAYES.
OF MISTER ORCHARD I YOU ARE THE
CEO OF OF*IS THAT CORRECT
THAT IS CORRECT OKAY AND JUST
LOOKING AT YOUR ANNUAL REPORTER
LOOKS LIKE A YOU.
YOU GUYS ARE PRETTY GOOD
FINANCIAL STANDING IN FACT YOUR
THE CRATER BOMB AGENCIES SMP.
COMBAT HAS HE WAS AS A DOUBLE A
ZACH WE PERCEIVE SEVERAL A GREAT
LOSS COUPLE HERE AND AND SO IS A
BIT UP TO YOU BEEN UPGRADING
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS
YES.
WHICH IS INTERESTING TO ME
BECAUSE WE HEARD FROM THE
GENTLEMAN IN THE LAST PANEL.
pARE -- AND
THE ARROW USE HAVE THE EXACT
SAME LIABILITY.
A FOR INVERSE SO WHY IS IT THAT
THE P. YOU USE CREDIT RATINGS
ARE GOING UP.
AND THE I USE ARE GOING DOWN DO
YOU THINK TO GIVE ANY OPINION
ABOUT THAT YOU KNOW --
WE HAVE HAD A CORE.
FROM PA CAR RATING AGENCIES
AROUND OUR WILD FIRE RISK THOSE
NON QUESTIONS HAVE FOCUSED ON
OUR MITIGATION MEASURES AND WHAT
WE'RE DOING TO ADDRESS THAT.
RISK -- WE
ALSO HAVE A STRONG HISTORY OF
OUR BOARD.
OUR ELECTED BOARD BEING VERY
WILLING.
TO ON TO OUR CUSTOMERS WHEN
NECESSARY SO IT ESSENTIALLY --
IS AN INDICATION THAT WE WILL
CHARGE OUR CUSTOMERS FOR
WHATEVER IS NECESSARY SO I THINK
THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE
THINGS THAT IS --
DRIVEN --
THEM TO TO PROVIDER UPGRADES AS
WELL AS ALL THE OTHER THINGS
WE'RE DOING AND AND THE USE
DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY OTHER
THAN IF THE P. YOU SEE GRANTS
THEM ABOUT ABILITY TO DO THAT
THAT IS MY AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN
AND THEN I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT.
LA DWP WHICH I THINK IS THE
LARGEST --
THAT IN IN THE STATE THAT
THEY'RE ALSO ON THEIR CREDIT
RATING IS ALSO VERY GOOD THINK
IT DOUBLE A WITH WITH SMP
HIGHEST SO WITH WITH MOODY'S IF
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
A QUICKLY --
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WITHIN
SMUTS SERVICE TERRY TERRITORY IF
ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE LIABLE?
FOR SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS
NUMBER BECAUSE OF UNDER STRICT
LIABILITY WHAT WOULD YOU DO YOU
SELL -- WE
WOULD OBVIOUSLY PASS THOSE COSTS
ON TO WORK CUSTOMER SO WITH A
WITH THE MASSIVE INCREASES IN
THE BILLS THEY PAY ALL OF OUR
CUSTOMERS INCLUDING OUR LOW
INCOME CUSTOMERS.
WHAT WE WOULD DO THOUGH IS IN
ORDER TO MINIMIZE THAT QUITE
FRANKLY WE WOULD LOOK AT HOW DO
WE MINIMIZE ALL OF OUR OTHER
EXPENSES?
SO THAT COULD MEAN THAT WHILE WE
HAVE BEEN FAR MORE AGGRESSIVE IN
THE STATE THAN THAN IS REQUIRED
BY THE STATE AND PROCURING
RENEWABLES INVESTING ELECTRIC.
RITESH AND IN ALL LIKELIHOOD
THAT WOULD CAUSE US TO PULL BACK
THOSE INVESTMENTS TO MINIMIZE.
THE RATE IMPACTS TO THE TO THE
EXTENT WE WOULD SO WOULD
RESHUFFLE HOW WE SPEND MONEY WE
WOULD CONTINUE TO MEET THE
MINIMUM STANDARDS REQUIRED BY
THE STATE.
BECAUSE THAT'S OUR LEGAL
OBLIGAION BUT WE HAVE A LONG
HISTORY OF GOING FAR BEYOND
THAT.
IN REALITY THAT WOULD PROBABLY
CAUSE US --
TO TO RE BALLOTS BASED ON THE
FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO OUR
CUSTOMER.
DID YOU DID YOU CAN ASSIMILATE
SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS --
THAT WOULD BE JUST A MASSIVE
MASSIVE RATE INCREASE --
I WISH Y. CFO'S HERE SHE COULD
DO IT IN HER HEAD --
BY -- IT
WOULD BE.
PROBABLY A 40% RATE INCREASE FOR
US SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE
AVERAGE BUSINESS FOR THE AVERAGE
BUILT 40% MORE AT A MINIMUM.
CAN THANK YOU.
OKAY -- THE
LAST -- ONE
HERE ON SENATOR JACKSON'S.
YES THANK YOU --
AT APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
AYE SO I CAN PUT ON THE RECORD
MY A CONSTERNATION OVER YOUR
OBSERVATION AT THE BEGINNING OF
THIS DISCUSSION MISTER WISEMAN.
THAT THIS WOULD APPLY ONLY
STARTING N JANUARY FIRST OF
THIS YEAR WHICH MEANS OF THE
COMMUNITY I REPRESENT.
WHICH HAD NOW THE SECOND LARGEST
WILDFIRE WHICH COST OVER A
THOUSAND HOMES IN TWENTY THREE
LIVES BUT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED
IN THAT WE SHOULD BE OKAY WITH
THAT -- I AM
NOT OKAY WITH THAT AND I DON'T
THINK THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
NOW SUFFERING.
A THROUGH THESE FIRES TO THE CAR
FIRED ALL IF THE IT IF THE
UTILITIES WERE LIE --
HAD --
RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY WOULD
BE EXEMPTED FROM WHAT WE KNOW
AND COURSE THAT THOSE FIRES WERE
NOT.
BECAUSE BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES
AND ISN'T IT A FACT THAT INVERSE
ONLY APPLIES WHEN THE UTILITIES
BECAUSE OF FIRE.
IS THAT CORRECT YES ARE SO.
WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE --
IT SEEMS YOU'VE OT TO IN ORDER
TO JUSTIFY ES NOW MOVING FROM
STRICT LIABILITY --
WITH ELECTRICAL TO THE THE WAY
WE DO --
FLOOD POLICIES IS TO TRY TO
EQUATE THE TWO THAT WILL JUSTIFY
POTENTIALLY AT LEAST IN YOUR
EYES MOVING FROM A STRICT
LIABILITY STANDARD TO A
REASONABLE STANDARD IS THAT
CORRECT THAT'S HOW YOU GET
THERE.
I WOULD TRY TO CLARIFY --
THAT THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS. ONE
QUESTION IS DOES THE LEGISLATURE
HAVE AUTHORITY. TO ADOPT A
REASONABLENESS STANDARD AND THAT
QUESTION.
FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE DEPENDS
ON WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
LANGUAGE COULD BE INTERPRETED IN
MORE THAN ONE WAY.
THE FACT THAT THE FLOOD CONTROL
CASES DID IT THAT WAY SHOWS THAT
THAT'S A POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION
THE SECOND QUESTION IS.
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE ADOPT A
REASONABLENESS STANDARD.
AND WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT'S
PARTLY INFLUENCED BY THE
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE FLOOD
CONTROL CONTEXT.
BUT ALSO PARTLY INFLUENCED BY
ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU
HEARD TODAY IN TERMS OF THE
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE
STATE.
OF A STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD.
BUT AS WAS POINTED OUT BY MY
COLLEAGUE ASSEMBLYWOMAN --
FROM [inaudible]
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.
WE NOW HAVE A STRICT LIABILITY
STANDARD AND COMPANIES LIKE P.
CHENEY WHICH ARE NOT HERE TODAY
FOR WHATEVER REASON --
HAVE BEEN FOUND LIABLE EVEN
UNDER NEGLIGENCE THERE THAT THEY
HAVEN'T EVEN DONE THAT LEVEL SO
WHY SHOULD WE REDUCE THEIR
LIABILITY --
AND EXPECT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
DO MORE.
WITH LESS LIABILITY BUT I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE A CRACK AT
THAT'S ASSURE [inaudible]
I THINK.
WHAT YOU JUST POINTED OUT IS
THAT THE STRICT LIABILITY
STANDARD HE IS NOT EFFECTIVE?
IN A CHANGING UTILITY BEHAVIOR
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE IN THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL HAS OTHER
THINGS PROPOSED. TO HAVE MUCH
BETTER WELFARE MITIGATION PLANS
TO HAVE INCREASED PENALTIES TO
HAVE ANNUAL REVIEWS WITH FINES
THINGS IT WILL DO A DIRECTLY TO
SHAREHOLDER PROFITS.
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WHICH
I'M WILL BE EFFECTIVE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION UNTIL THE US TO
JEANNIE CASE AT ALL WE CAN PASS
THROUGH TO THE RATE PAYERS.
AND SO IT HASN'T BEEN AN
EFFECTIVE TOOL EXCEPT THAT THE
FACT THAT IT DID GET PASS
THROUGH TO THE RATE PAYERS WAS
PART OF THE INCENTIVE.
THICK WITH THAT ES DE ANY --
SAN DIEGO GAS ELECTRIC TO HARDEN
THEIR SYSTEM AND MAKE IT THE
GOLD STANDARD ISN'T THAT RIGHT
NO ACTUALLY.
THE AT SEG ANY EXPECTED LIKE IT
AND ALL CASES IN THE PAST THAT
IT WOULD BE PASSED THE RATE
PAYERS.
AND WOOD NOT BECAUSE
SHAREHOLDERS ANYTHING AND NEVER
THE LESS THEY SPIT AND PARKED IN
A TEN YEAR PROGRAM TO MAKE THE
SYSTEM BETTER.
SO.
ITEM THIS I DON'T UNDERSTAND
YOUR LOGIC HERE FORGIVE ME IT'S
LIKE AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY.
IT'S IT'S IT'S LIKE THE GUY WHO
KILLED HIS PARENTS AND GOES
BEFORE THE COURT AND BEG FOR
MERCY BECAUSE HE'S AN ORPHAN.
I JUST AND DOESN'T AND NO ONE
SEEMS TO GET THERE TODAY ANY
BETTER THAN THEY DID THE OTHER
DAY.
BUT BASICALLY YOU'RE ASKING FOR
YOU'RE ASKING FOR A LESSER
PENALTY.
BECAUSE YOU DID WORSE BEHAVIOR
SAYING THAT ACTUALLY IF THE
OPPOSITE SENATOR WELL I I I
WOULD HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY
INCREASING PENALTIES THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL HAS
INCREASED PENALTIES BILL BUT IT
REDUCES LIABILITY.
I I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT
LET ME LET ME GO ONE THAT.
YOU COULD TRY TO ANALOGIZE HAS
TO A NORMAL BUSINESS SITUATION
BUT PART OF THE REASON THAT WE
ASK YOU WOULD THAT WE REQUIRE
THAT YOU MAINTAIN HIGHER
STANDARDS.
IS BECAUSE WE'VE LET YOU BECOME
A MONOPOLY AND WE FLETCHER CHIU
COME IN AND AT BE ABLE --
TO IMPOSE EASEMENTS ON OUR
PROPERTY ON OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY
--
NO PRIVATE ENTITY GETS TO
NOBODY'S TO DO THAT WE GIVE YOU
THE RIGHT TO HAVE THESE PRINTS
ARE ON OUR PROPERTY AND FOR
GOING TO DO THAT.
DON'T LET IT SHOULDN'T WE BE
ENTITLED TO EXPECT THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO EVERYTHING HUMANLY
POSSIBLE TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY
NOW THAT YOU GOT THE RIGHT KEVIN
EASTMAN ACROSS AND PUT YOUR
POLLS UP --
OUT YOU KNOW ON MY PROPERTY HERE
MANY FENCE LINE OR OTHER
PEOPLE'S WHY SHOULD WE SAY TO
YOU THAT WASHER WE NOW SAY WELL
LET'S LOOK AT YOU LIKE YOU'RE
ANY OTHER BUSINESS YOU'RE NOT
[inaudible]
BAD.
HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT
[inaudible]
SO -- WHAT
GOES WITH FEE OUR AUTHORITY TO
EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE
SERVICE IN ALL PARTS OF THE
STATE WHICH IS NOT AN OBLIGATION
THAT IS IMPOSED ON A PRIVATE
BUSINESS?
SO THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER
THE UTILITIES SHOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE THE QUESTION IS NOT
WHETHER THE UTILITIES.
SHOULD BE LIABLE IN THE EVENT
THAT THE ACT AND RECENTLY THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY SHOULD
BE HELD LIABLE.
IF THERE WITHOUT FAULT IN
CARRYING OUT THAT PUBLIC SERVICE
WILL BUT WE REQUIRE THAT IN A
LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS WITH
GOVERNMENT AND AND PART OF THE
REASON IS IT NOT.
BECAUSE WHEN LAWYERS GET
TOGETHER AND I WANT TO SOME
MOPPING CRITICAL.
IS WE'RE GONNA FIGHT OVER THE
LIABILITY ISSUE FIRST START WEEK
THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IF
IT IF WE HAVE STRICT LIABILITY
IN NO FAULT THAT ISSUE WE SKIP
OVER THAT WE GO TO WATER THAT
WHAT OF THE COMPENSATION WHAT'S.
ONE OF THE DAMAGES.
BUT IN THIS CASE AND THAT'S WERE
PART OF THE REASO IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN THAT WE'VE HAD DISTRICT
LIABILITIES BECAUSE WE WANT TO
TRY TO MAKE THE VICTIMS HOLE AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
ESOS WITNESSES TESTIFIED EARLIER
THEIR HOMES THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE
LIVING SOMEWHERE ELSE THEIR
LIVES HERE UP IN IN THE AIR THEY
WANT TO GET BACK TO TO
CREATIVELY DOING THEIR HOMES
REBUILDING OR FINDING ANOTHER
PLACE TO LIVE A REBUILDING THEIR
BUSINESSES.
SO WHEN YOU HAVE IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN PART OF THE REASON FOR
THIS FOR OUR INVERSE
CONDEMNATION --
LAWS TODAY IS THAT IT EXPEDITED
THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE VICTIMS
ARE ABLE TO GET ON WITH THEIR
LIVES BUT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IF
WE IF WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT
REASONABLE LISTEN RETIREMENT
NEGLIGENCE.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A FOUR FIVE
YEAR BATTLE IN A COURT ROOM AND
THESE PEOPLE ARE SITTING THERE
WITH THE CLOCK TICKING THEY
MIGHT GET TWO YEARS WORTH OF
COMPA.
PAYMENTS FOR A FOR LIVING IN
UNDER THEIR INSURANCE POLICIES.
IT ISN'T PARA REASON FOR THIS
SENATE AND ISN'T THAT REASON --
ONE THAT HELPS THE VICTIMS OF
THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR OF THE
FACT THAT YOUR THAT YOUR
UTILITIES HAVE CAUSED THE FIRE
WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN HARDENED OR
NOT HARDEN PROPERLY.
RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY REAL
SUBSTANDARD AND THE AND I'VE YET
TO HEAR PEACHY ANY TALK ABOUT
SAFETY.
AND AND PREVENTION AND YOU FOLKS
ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR FIRST
THING IS STABILIZING MARKETS MY
PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
GOING TO DO TO PREVENT THESE
FIRES HOW WE CAN MAKE THAT PIE
SMALLER HOW YOU GOING TO DO THAT
WITH THE SYSTEM YOU'RE.
PROPOSING [inaudible]
SENATE JACKSON.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL INCLUDES
DOING EXACTLY THAT MAKING THE
SYSTEM SAFER.
IT'S THAT WE ABSOLUTELY ENTIRELY
1100% AGREE WITH YOU THAT
VICTIMS NEED TO BE MADE WHOLE
AND THEY NEED TO MEAN MADE WHOLE
QUICKLY.
THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS.
FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE
SUPPOSED TO DO THAT QUESTION
HERE IS WHETHER YOU WANT TO MAKE
RATE PAYERS THE INSURANCE
COMPANY.
OR SHAREHOLDERS OR MAKE THE
COMPANIES DO THEIR JOBS AWAY
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO NOT GIVE UP
BONUSES AND NOT TALK ABOUT
SECURITY AND NOT TALK ABOUT
PREVENTION.
WE ABSOLUTELY WANT UTILITIES TO
DO THEIR JOB THE WAY THEY'RE
SUPPOSED.
TO THANK SENATOR DODD CARRIED A
BILL.
S. B. TEN EIGHTY EIGHT TO DO
EXACTLY THAT TO HOLD THEIR FEET
TO THE FIRE AND TO FIND THEM
NEGLIGENT FIND THEM NOT
REASONABLE PRUDENT IF THEY DON'T
FOLLOW THEIR PLANTS THAT'S
EXACTLY WHAT THE PROPOSAL DOES.
THE MEMBER WOULD.
MAKE YOU I APOLOGIZE FOR THE
LITERALLY THE LAST ONE ALRIGHT
PARA CLOSED I THINK WE'RE ALL
DONE I THINK EVERYBODY'S ASK THE
QUESTIONS THAT FOR ME
[inaudible]
SO REALISTICALLY.
HOW LONG WOULD SOME OF THESE
PLANS THAT THE GOVERNOR'S
CALLING FOR IN HIS --
IN HIS A PROPOSAL HERE TAKE. FOR
YOU GUYS. TO ENACT
REALISTICALLY.
UNDER THE TIME LINES.
THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.
BY NEXT JULY FIRST.
THE PROPOSALS WOULD BEGIN.
THE COMMISSION WE WOULD HOPE
WOULD ACT VERY QUICKLY ON THAT
PUSHED THROUGH IT LANGUAGES
STRIVE THEY THAT'S RIGHT DR AND
WE ARE CERTAINLY AMENABLE TO
STRENGTHENING THAT LANGUAGE I
THINK THERE'S A GOOD CASE TO BE
MADE THAT.
THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO BE GIVEN
A HARD DEADLINE BECAUSE THE
COMMISSION HAS A HISTORY OF
TAKING LONGER THAN IT SHOULD.
AND IF HE AND THE WISDOM OF THIS
COMMITTEE YOU WANNA MODIFY THAT
TO PUT IN A HARDER DEADLINE.
I THINK YOU FIND A LOT OF
RECEPTIVENESS FROM SOME OF US.
A QUESTION I THOUGHT AND IF I
DIDN'T SAY IT THIS WAY COLLEGE
EYES HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU
TO ENACT THOSE PLANS WE KNOW
THAT AS THE GENIE HAS BEEN
WORKING ON THESE.
OVER TEN YEARS SO REALISTICALLY
SMART BOMBS NOW.
HOW LONG YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN
DOING WORK OBVIOUSLY --
THE MARKET SEEMED TO RECOGNIZE
WHAT YOU'RE DOING --
HOW LONG?
DOES IT TAKE TO PUT THESE PLANS
INTO EFFECT WHAT THE PLANS AND
THE PLANS HAVE TO EVOLVE OVER
TIME AND I CONDITIONS CHANGE
THAT'S THE OTHER PART OF IT SO.
IT IS -- YOU
PLAN AND THEN YOU YOU LAY OUT A
TIMELINE SO FOR EXAMPLE WE ARE
INCREASING --
WE'VE INCREASED OUR VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT TO MOVE OUTSIDE OF
THEIR RIGHTS OF WAY AND STARTING
TO NEGOTIATE WITH --
PROPERTY OWNERS TO REMOVE.
PALM TREES IN THEIR RIGHTS OF
WAY WE ARE --
INVESTING MORE IN I'M TECHNOLOGY
TO DEATH. TO DETECT A PROBLEM
TREES LIKE LET LIGHT ARE.
EXTREME --
TO DETECT LE ABOUT FAULT LINES
IN SAYS.
I'M SO IT'S IT'S THERE IT'S A
MULTIPLE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO
DO THERE'S NOT A ONE SIZE FITS
ALL IT'S ALSO GOING TO DEPEND ON
WHAT IS YOUR SERVICE TERRITORY
LOOK LIKE WHAT IS YOUR EMPIRE
MET LOOK LIKE --
SITE I SUSPECT --
THE PLANTS THAT NEED TO BE PUT
IN PLACE WILL LOOK DIFFERENT FOR
DIFFERENT UTILITIES DEPENDING ON
THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND IT PROBABLY WILL TAKE --
A FEW YEARS OF INVESTMENT TO
MOVE ON BUT I ALSO THINK THIS IS
SOMETHING YOU SHOT ONE AND DONE
THIS ISA PROGRAM THAT PROBABLY
LAST. FOR EVER QUITE FRANKLY
THAT UTILITIES ARE GOING TO HAVE
TO CONTINUE TO STEP UP THE GAME
AS NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE
DEVELOPED TO STRENGTHEN OUR
SYSTEM.
I WOULD EXPECT THOSE PLANS TO BE
AMENDED TO INCORPORATE THOSE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES INTO HEARTENING
SYSTEM.
I GUESS I GUESS --
AND MAYBE THIS IS A ROUNDABOUT
WAY OF OF TRY AND MAKE ONE OF
THE POINTS THAT SENATOR
JACKSON'S MAKING AND MAYBE IT
MAYBE IT'S NOT MAYBE IT'S JUST
WAY OUT THEE SOMEWHERE.
BUT I GUESS I'M I'M STRUGGLING
WITH.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGES IN
THE WAY WE LOOK AT LIABILITY.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PLANS IT
MAY TAKE YEARS TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND YOU WANT THAT YOU GUYS WANT
THAT NOW.
BUT THESE PLANTS MIGHT TAKE
YEARS TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND THERE IS A FEAR THAT.
SOME THE UTILITIES HAVEN'T DONE
WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
HOW DO WE HOW DO WE GET ANY
ASSURANCE?
THAT YOU ACTUALLY DO.
WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE GONNA NOW
BECAUSE THE RECORD AT LEAST FOR
ONE UTILITY AND I'M NOT THIS IS
NOT DIRECT TO YOU SIR BECAUSE OF
HERE AT THIS YEAR IT'S NOT?
THE REGULARS FOR WHAT YOU TO IT
IS THAT IT ISN'T HASN'T HAPPENED
AND SO.
WHO WERE ASKED YOU IN SOME WAYS
ARE SAYING LIKE TRUST US WE'RE
GOING TO GET THIS DONE THE TRACK
RECORDS DON'T?
DON'T FOLLOW THAT COURSE AND I
AND THAT'S PART OF THE CONCERN.
UP ALL I CAN SUGGEST AN AND TOM
ALL DEFERRED OR COLLEAGUES THAT
IS THAT --
PART OF THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
SETS A HIGHER STANDARD FOR
UTILITIES IN THESE NEW PLANTS.
SO IF YOU VIOLATE THAT NEW
STANDARD YOU WILL BE LIABLE SO
FOR FOR ME SPEAKING FROM SOME
OUTSIDE.
THAT'S A HUGE INCENTIVE TO MOVE
QUICKLY WERE ALREADY MOVING
QUICKLY BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE
THAT THE BROADER RISK AND
OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY.
OUR ONLY OPTION IS TO PASS IT ON
TO OUR CUSTOMERS AND OBVIOUSLY I
WORK FOR SEVEN ELECTED OFFICIALS
WHO HATE EVERY RATE INCREASE BUT
DO IT PRUDENTLY.
SO.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD TO
LIMIT THAT LIABILITY AS QUICKLY
AS WE CAN AND I GUESS I GO BACK
TO BUT COMMENT THAT.
FRUSTRATES FRUSTRATED ME WHEN I
HEARD --
PRESIDENT PICKER SAY.
AND MAY GOD TAKING THIS OUT OF
CONTEXT IS IS BUT OUR JOB IS TO
SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN
[inaudible]
THAT.
I'M SORRY THAT.
DOESN'T JIVE WITH WHAT WE'RE
TRYINGTO ACCOMPLISH HERE MISTER
WHAT I I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD
NOT TAKE ANYTHING ON FAITH YOU
NEED TO IMPROVE THE REGULATORY
SYSTEM AND HOLD THE COMMISSION'S
FEET TO THE FIRE AND GIVE THEM.
A BETTER REGULATORY SYSTEM SO
THAT THEY CAN.
DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY AND MAKE
THE UTILITIES TO WHAT THEY NEED
TO DO ALL DUE RESPECT WE GIVE
THEM DIRECTION.
A LOT OF TIMES AND QUITE FRANKLY
SOMETIMES THE TO TAKE AWAY A
LONG TIME TO IMPLEMENT THAT.
OR SOMETIMES SOME WAS ACTUALLY
FEEL LIKE THEY IGNORE IT LET'S
DO WITH CONSTRICTED DEADLINES.
THANK YOU I THINK IT THROUGH
[inaudible]
JERRY.
WELL THANK YOU I THINK THE
QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO
HOUSES SORT OF ADDRESSED IN YOUR
RESPONSE.
A BUT WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR
PRESENTATION AND WE WILL MOVE ON
TO THE NEXT PANEL.
AND I BELIEVE WE'VE EXHAUSTED
THE QUESTIONS FOR YOU FOR TODAY
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
SO WE MOVED TO PANEL.
THREE AND THAT WILL INCLUDE TOM
ALONG LITIGATION DIRECTOR. FOR
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK.
MICHAEL SHAW VICE PRESIDENT
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURES AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION.
AND MICHAEL LOOK ADORABLE.
WEST COAST ADVISER.
ADVISORS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AGRICULTURAL ENERGY CONSUMERS
[inaudible]
THIS [inaudible]
WELCOME.
AND WILL BEGIN NOW TOM LAW
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
CO CHAIRS AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
THANK YOU FOR INVITING TURN TO
SHARE THE PERSPECTIVE OF
RESIDENTIAL RATEPAYERS.
REGARDING WILDFIRE LIABILITY
ISSUES.
I AM LEGAL DIRECTOR OF TURN AND
HAVE BEEN LITIGATING A WIDE
RANGE OF ISSUES AT THE CPUC FOR
OVER THIRTY YEARS.
STARTING POINT FOR THE RATE
PAYER PERSPECTIVE HAS TO BE THE
INCREASING.
ON AFFORDABILITY OF UTILITY
BILLS.
BECAUSE CALIFORNIA HAS SOME OF
THE HIGHEST.
ELECTRIC RATES IN THE NATION FAR
TOO MANY RATE PAYERS.
ARE FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO PAY
THEIR ENERGY BILLS.
DISCONNECTION RATES ARE STEADILY
RISING WITH MORE THAN EIGHT
HUNDRED THOUSAND CALIFORNIA
HOUSEHOLDS GETTING THEIR SERVICE
SHUT OFF IN THE MOST RECENT
YEAR.
WHICH IS A 60% INCREASE FROM
JUST FIVE YEARS AGO.
SERVICE BUT SHUT OFF RATES IN
SOME COMMUNITIES RANGE FROM 20%.
TO ITS HIGHEST 32%.
THE CHALLENGE OF AFFORDABILITY
IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.
OUR ALREADY HIGH ENERGY RATES
ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO
INCREASE WELL ABOVE INFLATION.
TO PAY FOR A WIDE RANGE OF
UTILITY PROGRAMS.
IN REGARDS TO WILDFIRE
PREVENTION.
KEEP IN MIND THAT CALIFORNIA'S
RATE PAYERS ARE THE ONES PAYING
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
EACH YEAR. FOR ALL OF THE
PREVENTION AND MITIGATION
ACTIVITIES OF THE UTILITIES.
UTILITY SHAREHOLDERS DO NOT PAY
FOR THIS PREVENTION WORK.
AND AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF PGD
CUSTOMERS.
RATEPAYERS ARE NOT GETTING GOOD
RESULTS FOR THEIR MONEY.
AS SHOWN BY THE TWENTY SEVENTEEN
WILDFIRES.
AGAINST THAT BACKDROP IT IS
IMPERATIVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT
RATE PAYERS ARE ALREADY PAYING
MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE WITH
MIXED RESULTS.
RAY PAIR SHOULD BE PROTECTED
FROM ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT
RIGHTFULLY BELONG TO THE
UTILITIES PERIOD. FOR WILDFIRES
TURN OFFERS THE FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUTTING
CONSUMERS AND FIRE VICTIMS. FOR
FOR WILD FIRES CAUSED BY UTILITY
NEGLIGENCE.
RATEPAYERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO
PAY FOR THE MISTAKES AND
MISMANAGEMENT OF THE UTILITIES
NO WAY NO HOW.
TRY TELLING NORTH BAY FIRE
VICTIMS THAT THEIR ENERGY BILLS
WILL GO UP.
BECAUSE P. GENIE DIDN'T DO THE
TREE TRIMMING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO
DO.
WITH THEIR RATE PAYERS DOLLARS.
ALSO WEAKENING UTILITY
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MAKING
MISTAKES IS BAD POLICY.
BECAUSE IT DESTROYS UTILITY
INCENTIVES TO IMPROVE WILDFIRE
PREVENTION.
WE NEED MORE ACCOUNTABILITY NOT
LESS.
THIS IS WHY TURN HAS BEEN
ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO S. B. TEN
EIGHTY EIGHTS.
CHANGES TO THE CPUC REVIEW
PROCESS.
THE BILL WEAKENS THE LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF UTILITIES BY
ELIMINATING UTILITIES
RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT PRUDENTLY.
AND REPLACING IT WITH THE VAGUE
AND INEFFECTIVE REQUIREMENT TO
ONLY.
QUOTE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY.
WITH A UTILITY DRAFTED SAFETY
PLAN.
WE URGE YOU TO REJECT THESE
PROVISIONS OF SB.
TEN EIGHTY EIGHT AND WE ALSO
CALLING YOU TO REJECT AB.
THIRTY THREE WHOSE BASIC
PREMISES THAT RATEPAYERS AND NOT
UTILITY SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD
PROVIDE UP FRONT FUNDING FOR
SECURITIZATION COSTS RESULTING
FROM P. GENIES NEGLIGENCE.
AGAIN REPAIRS ALREADY PAY FOR
PREVENTION COSTS SO WHY SHOULD
WE ALSO BE EXPECTED TO PAY EVEN
TEMPORARILY. FOR ANY COSTS
RESULTING FROM UTILITY
NEGLIGENCE.
NOW SWITCHING TO WHAT SHOULD BE
DONE IN REGARDS TO WILD FIRES
ARE CAUSED BY UTILITY FACILITIES
BUT NOT THE RESULT OF UTILITY
NEGLIGENCE.
TURN SUGGESTS EXPLORING A BROAD
BASED COMPENSATION MECHANISM
THAT EQUITABLY ALLOCATES
COMPENSATION FOR CATASTROPHIC
LOSSES AND DOESN'T FURTHER
BURDEN RATEPAYERS.
THE FUNDING SOLUTIONS NEED TO
LOOK BEYOND THE UTILITIES
SECTOR.
BECAUSE WILD FIRES ARE NOT JUST
A UTILITY ISSUE.
AS FOR SEEING ALL TOO WELL FROM
THE CAR FIRE AND OTHER FIRES HIS
HERE.
WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT
SOLUTIONS LIKE A FLORIDA
HURRICANE CATASTROPHE FUND.
WHICH USES A MODEST SURCHARGE ON
INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVERAGE
CATASTROPHIC LOSSES.
PERFORMING THE STANDARD.
OF LIABILITY FOR INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AS PROPOSED BY THE
GOVERNOR IS ONE WAY.
BUT NOT THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT
RATE PAYERS FROM ULTIMATELY
PAYING LIABILITY COSTS.
IT'S WORTHWHILE IDEA BUT NOT A
COMPLETE SOLUTION AS YOU'VE
HEARD FROM OTHERS TODAY.
ULTIMATELY DEVELOPING A BROAD
BASE COMPENSATION MECHANISM IS
COMPLEX AND CHALLENGING.
AND NOT SOMETHING WE BELIEVE
THAT CAN BE THOUGHTFULLY
RESOLVED IN A FEW WEEKS.
TURNER DID YOU NOT TO LET P.
GENIES TRUMPED UP CRISIS
CAMPAIGN.
SCARE YOU INTO ACCEPTING THE
OVER REACHING PROPOSALS DRAFTED
BY P. JEANNIE.
REGARDING THE TWENTY SEVENTEEN
NORTH BAY FIRES THE TRUTH IS WE
HAVE A DANGEROUSLY INCOMPLETE
PICTURE OF THE PROBLEM WE'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS.
BECAUSE WITHOUT THE TUBS FIRE
FINDINGS WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW
MUCH PROPERTY DAMAGE WILL BE THE
RESULT OF UTILITY NEGLIGENCE.
AND HOW MUCH WILL BE
ATTRIBUTABLE. TWO OTHER CAUSES.
SO IT'S PREMATURE TO CONSIDER
BILLS LIKE A. B. THIRTY THREE
UNTIL WE HAVE SOME IDEA OF HOW
MUCH OF THE WILDFIRE LIABILITY
COSTS.
RIGHTFULLY BELONG TO UTILITY
SHAREHOLDERS.
NOW AS FOR P. GINNY'S FINANCIAL
CONDITION.
BLOOMBERG REPORTED LAST WEEK THE
VIEW OF A HIGHLY RESPECTED
CREDIT RESEARCH FIRM THE PGD HAS
ENOUGH CASH TO ABSORB TEN
BILLION DOLLARS IN WILDFIRE
CLAIMS.
SO WHAT TO THE LEGISLATURE TO BY
THE END OF THIS MONTH TWO
THINGS.
FIRST ADOPT A MODIFIED VERSION
OF THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
THE NON INVERSE CONDEMNATION
PART.
THAT DIRECTS THE UTILITIES TO
SUBMIT UPDATED WHILE FIRE
MITIGATION PLANS TO THE CPC IN.
TWENTY NINETEEN FOR EXPEDITED
REVIEW AND APPROVAL AND DO THIS
IN THE UTILITIES GENERAL RATE
CASES.
THIS WILL EXPERT ADOPTION OF KEY
SAFETY MEASURES WALK WITHOUT
GIVING THE UTILITIES A BLANK
CHECK FOR SPENDING THAT WASTES
REPAIR MONEY.
SECOND AB SORRY CAN YOU BRING
YOUR COMMISSARIAT YES THIS IS
THE LAST POINT THANK YOU.
SECOND CONVENE A WORKING GROUP
OF EXPERTS TO DEVELOP A
STATEWIDE WILDFIRE COMPENSATION
MECHANISM TO MAKE UTILITY
RELATED.
WHILE FIRE VICTIMS HOLE AS WELL
AS VICTIMS OF NON UTILITY
RELATED WILDFIRES.
BRING IN EXPERTS FROM OTHER
STATES SUCH AS FLORIDA TO SHARE
THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH SIMILAR
CATASTROPHIC FUNDS AND THEN
DEVELOP A PROPOSAL TO BE
ADOPTED.
DURING THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE
YEAR.
THANK YOU AND LOOK FORWARD TO
YOUR QUESTIONS [inaudible]
BUT YOU.
BUT THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN I
MISTER CHAIRMAN --
MICHAEL SAW CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURES TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION --
FIRST I EH IF HE CAN'T BE SAID
ENOUGH THAT DIED THAT MANY WOMEN
WHO ARE OUT FIGHTING THE FIRES
RIGHT NOW DESERVE AN IMMENSE
AMOUNT OF HONOR FOR THE WORK
THAT THEY'RE DOING THE SACRIFICE
THAT THEY'RE MAKING IT STRUCK ME
YESTERDAY.
LST COUPLE DAYS TO SEE
FIREFIGHTERS FROM TEXAS AND
ALABAMA AND ALL OVER THE FRANKLY
FROM SNIP PLACES IN THE WORLD.
HERE AT THE OVER AT THE HYATT --
HERE TO HELP FIGHT THE FIGHT AND
IT'S TELLING OF THE COMMUNITY OF
FIREFIGHTERS AND I THINK THAT IS
A SACRIFICE IT WE CANNOT --
AND COMMITMENT THAT WE CAN HONOR
ENOUGH.
I AT THIS POINT YOU KNOW WE
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE THIS COMMITTEE IN
PARTICULAR FOCUS ON WHAT CAN BE
DONE IN THE LIMITED TIME THAT
REMAINS.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD
EMBRACE A TIMELY PRUDENT AND
DELIBERATE PROCESS A TO DRESS A
COMPLEX COMBINATION OF ISSUES
GOING FORWARD WITH WILDFIRE
LIABILITY AS WELL AS
PREVENTIONS.
I AS A PROFESSOR WAR --
ADDRESSED --
AT THE FIRST COMMITTEE HEARING
--
THERE MANY COMPLEX ISSUES
RELATED TO LAND USE CURRENT
ZONING COST EFFECTIVENESS
LIABILITY COST RECOVERY --
IT THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO
CONSIDER ALL IN THE NEXT FEW
WEEKS UP CERTAINLY THAT IS NOT
TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE
CAPABILITIES OF ANYBODY HERE IN
THIS ROOM.
UP BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
VERY DIFFICULT ISSUES.
WE BELIEVE THAT OUR FOCUS SHOULD
BE ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS.
FIRST AND FOREMOST RESPONDING TO
THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THOSE WH
HAVE SFFERED LOSSES IN THE
FIRES OF TWENTY SEVENTEEN AND
THE FIRES ARE CURRENTLY BURNING
TODAY --
SECOND TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION
TO REDUCE THE RISK AND MITIGATE
THE SIZE A FUTURE FIRES THROUGH
VARIOUS ACTIONS WE CAN TAKE SUCH
AS REDUCING FUELS --
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT FUEL
POTENTIALLY IN DIFFERENT
DIFFERENT WAYS.
GOING FORWARD THE OTHER FORMAL
Y. BILLION PROVISION SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED IN A LARGER CONTEXT.
I'D IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE
SHOULD NOT LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS TO SAY
THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER IN THE
LARGER CONTEXT AND WE SHOULD
CONSIDER AT ANOTHER TIME.
WE SHOULD SPEND THE TIME AND
LIMITED TIME AND ENERGY THAT
REMAINS.
ON OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE MORE
IMMEDIATE IMPACT I THINK A
SENATOR --
JACKSON INCIDENT WOULD
HIGHLIGHTED A SHORT WHILE AGO.
WE ALSO BELIEVE YOU SHOULD
CONTINUE TO HOLD UTILITY
SHAREHOLDERS NOT REPAIRS
RESPONSIBLE FOR A WHILE FIRE
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM UTILITY
NEGLIGENCE.
PUTTING HIS GOVERNOR SAID THE
LAW MUST ESTABLISH A IN HIS
PROPOSAL HOW LONG ASSIST ABBAS
POWERFUL INCENTIVES FOR
UTILITIES TO DELIVER POWER
SAFELY.
AND WAS TOLD THOSE WHO FOUGHT
WHO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE
THEY CAUSE.
AND I SAY THAT ONLY TO HIGHLIGHT
IT NOT TO IMPLY THAT ANYONE HAS
SUGGESTED THAT WE DO ANYTHING
OTHER THAN THAT --
I WOULD AGREE WITH --
THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM TURN
MISTER LONG AND THAT WE'RE GOING
INCIDENTS WERE UTILITY
FACILITIES WERE --
BECAUSE BUT NOT NOT THE NET NOT
NOT INVOLVING NEGLIGENCE --
THAT THERE AT THE CONSTRICTED
ACCRETION OF FIND YOU KNOW COULD
BE A WAY FOR US TO HELP ADDRESS
THOSE ISSUES.
SO I WON'T REITERATE UP THOSE
POINTS.
I EXCEPT TO SAY THAT ELECTRICITY
RATE PAYERS SHOULD NOT.
AND CANNOT BE THE SOLE SOURCE.
OF THAT REVENUE.
I BECAUSE THOSE ARE COSTS THAT
WILL BE IMPOSED ON OUR
BUSINESSES ON OUR RESIDENTS.
WHICH IMPACTS OUR ABILITY TO
CREATE JOBS IN IMPACTS THE
ABILITY OF OUR FAMILIES TO PAY.
HOPE FOR THE THINGS THAT THEY
NEEDN'T ESPECIALLY HOUSE WERE IN
THE MIDST OF SUMMER AND IT'S A
HUNDRED DEGREES OUTSIDE HERE IN
SACRAMENTO.
UMPS FROM THEIR CONDITIONS ARE
RUNNING PRETTY STRONG --
IS A SENATOR HUESO I BELIEVE --
EARLIER MENTIONED --
ASKING ASKING LOOKING FOR
BAILOUTS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT REPAIRS HAVE ALREADY PAID
FOR THE SYSTEM.
I THAT THEY HAVE --
INVESTED MONEY IN CALIFORNIA
HAVING A SAFE AND RELIABLE A
RESILIENT LECTURES THIS ELECTRIC
SYSTEM IF THE THAT REVENUE
HASN'T BEEN USED IN THE WAY IT
WAS INTENDED IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT.
THAT BE AUDITED THAT WE
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS NOT RATE
PAYER FUNDS NOT BE USED.
ABOUT TO BAIL OUT UTILITIES AS A
RESULT.
BUT HE'S ALSO AND I THINK WE'LL
CLOSE WITH THIS IMPORTANT NOTE
THAT --
CHOICES MUST BE MADE I THINK SO
CANNELLA NOTED THIS EARLIER --
WE HAVE WE'RE DOING A LOT OF
THINGS WERE ASKING UTILITIES TO
DO A LOT OF THINGS RATE PAYERS
ARE PAYING. FOR THOSE THINGS I
WOULD NOTE IT'S NOT UTILITY
MONEY IT'S REPAIR MONEY.
SO WHAT ARE WE SPENDING THE
MONEY ON ARE WE GETTING MORE
PAYING.
FOR AND MORE IMPORTANTLY.
MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT WE
CANNOT DO EVERYTHING THAT WE
HAVE COMMITTED ARE UTILITIES AND
CONSEQUENTLY A REPAIR FUNDS TO
GO.
FOR MAYBE WE NEED TO MAKE SOME
CHOICES DIFFICULT CHOICES NONE
THE LESS BUT I THINK IF WE'RE
GOING TO CONSIDER.
THAT WE ARE IN A A CRITICAL NEW
NORMAL.
THAT MAYBE SOME OF THOSE
DECISIONS WE MADE IN THE PAST
DESERVE RECONSIDERATION.
IT'S NOT TO CALL OUT ANY
SPECIFIC POLICY SIMPLY TO STATE
THAT WE JUST CAN'T DO
EVERYTHING.
I THINK IS A MISTER SMARTY JONES
SAWYER NOTED EARLIER.
THERE'S NO MAGICAL POT OF MONEY
OUT THERE UP FOR US TO DRAW
FROM.
THE CITY HAS BEEN DOING ALL I
SEVERAL YEARS.
UP FINANCIALLY BUT THAT IS NOT
TO SAY THAT THAT WILL CONTINUE
FOREVER.
SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN --
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
MICHAEL POKER DORO ON BEHALF OF
THE AG ENERGY CONSUMERS SOCIAIS
XIN WE REPRESENT THE STATE'S
FARMING AND FOOD PROCESSING
INDUSTRIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
LET ME START BY SAYING THAT I
TOO AGREE WITH LUPUS RADIUS
SPOKE ABOUT ON TUESDAY.
AT THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY NEEDS
TO MAKE SURE THAT FIRE VICTIMS
ARE MADE WHOLE AND HOPEFULLY
EVERYONE CAN AGREE TO THAT.
WHAT REALLY BECOMES A DIFFICULT
TASK FOR ALL OF YOU IS HOW DO
YOU DO THAT AND WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE TO PAY FOR THAT IS
THE MORE DIFFICULT CHALLENGES?
YOU'VE HEARD SOME SUGGESTIONS
FROM SOE OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT
ARE ALSO RATE PAYER ADVOCATES.
UNFORTUNATELY I DIDN'T HEAR A
LOT OF SOLUTIONS FROM THE FIRST
PANEL TODAY --
A LOT OF EXCUSES A LOT OF
POSITIONING IN BLAME POINTING AT
PGA IN A THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT
PGA NAY IT'S ABOUT THE RATE
PAYERS AND UNFORTUNATELY. FOR A
LOT OF THOSE FOLKS I THINK
THEY'D BE PERFECTLY HAPPY IF
RATE PAYERS WERE LEFT HOLDING
THE BAG FOR ALL OF THESE COSTS.
AND WE CAN'T BE AND WE SHOULDN'T
BE.
WHY SHOULDN'T WE BE WE DON'T
MAKE DECISIONS AS RATEPAYERS
UTILITIES MAKE THE DECISIONS ON
WHAT GETS FUNDED?
WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT
FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
THE STATE MAKES THOSE DECISIONS.
WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING AND
PUTTING HOMES IN HARM'S WAY.
WE HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER THESE
THINGS THAT ARE DRIVING THE
COSTS.
WHICH BRINGS ME TO A REALLY
IMPORTANT POINT I AGREE WE ARE
FACING A NEW NORMAL THAT NEW
NORMAL IS MORE COSTLY.
AND LARGER WILDFIRES.
I THINK IT GOES BEYOND CLIMATE
POLICY HOWEVER IT GOES BACK TO
WHAT I JUST STATED.
SOME FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN THE STATE THAT HAVE
BEEN LACKING MISTER DOLLY AND
OTHERS AND MISSED MAYES AND
OTHERS HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP
REPEATEDLY WE AGREE WITH THAT
STATE HAS SOME CULPABILITY HERE.
SOME RESPONSIBILITY HERE AND
NEEDS TO BE PART OF THAT
SOLUTION.
LOCAL LAND USE PLAN.
IS DONE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
WE ARE GETTING MORE COSTLY FIRES
BECAUSE THERE ARE FRANKLY MANY
MORE HOMES IN HARM'S WAY.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE THOSE HARM
THOSE HOMES ARE NOT IN HARM'S
WAY THE COSTS WOULD NOT BE AS
GREAT AS THEY ARE TODAY.
BUT WE HAVE THE SITUATION WE
HAVE AND WE HAVE TO ADDRESS AND
I THINK THAT'S THE RELEASED THE
RULE FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
SO LET ME TRY AND IN TURN --
TO A REAL IMPORTANT POINT FOR
THOSE REASONS WE DO SUPPORT.
OVERVIEW OF THE INVERSE
CONDEMNATION AND A WAY TO BETTER
BALANCE THE LIABILITY GOING
FORWARD.
WHETHER WE ADDRESS THAT.
THIS YEAR WHICH WOULD BE MY
PREFERENCE OR WE ADDRESS IT
GOING FORWARD IT IS PART.
OF A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION HAT
NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED HOPEFULLY
WE CAN AGREE ON A A FEW OTHER
THINGS MOVING FORWARD SO WHAT'S
A MORE BALANCED AND SUSTAINABLE
SOLUTION LOOK LIKE GOING FORWARD
--
NO AND AND ONE OTHER POINT I
WANT TO MAKE IS WERE NOT HERE
PIMPIN FOR THE UTILITIES NOT BY
ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION
I'M ONE OF THE LEADING CRITICS
OF UTILITIES IN THE STATE I'VE
BEEN --
UTILITY RATE PAYER ADVOCATE FOR
OVER TWENTY YEARS.
I RARELY GET UP AND TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF PGA NAY BUT WE AGREE
WITH THEM HERE THAT THIS
LIABILITY ISSUE NEEDS TO BE
REFORMED.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD --
AND SO THAT'S FIRST AND FOREMOST
--
THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
WHEN THEY'RE NEGLIGENT I DON'T
THINK ANYONE DISAGREES WITH THAT
I DON'T EVEN THINK P. JEANNIE
WILL DISAGREE WITH THAT.
THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN UTILITY
RATE PAYERS WILL CONTINUE TO
BEAR THE BRUNT OF COSTS OF
HARDENING THE SYSTEM AS WE MOVE
FORWARD.
WE ALL RECOGNIZE ITS RATEPAYERS
WOULD ALL LIKE TO SAY THAT THERE
WON'T BE INCREASES FOR
RATEPAYERS THERE WILL BE.
THE SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE
HARDENED AND WILL THE UTILITIES
MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS THE RATE
PAYERS PAPER THOSE INVESTMENTS
NOT THE UTILITY SHAREHOLDERS.
SO WE'RE ON THE HOOK FOR THAT
GOING FORWARD WE'RE GOING TO
BEAR THE BRUNT OF THAT.
INSURERS NEED TO STEP UP AND BE
MORE RESPONSIBLE AGREE WITH MARK
JOSEPH ON THOSE WHEN THE
INEVITABLE STRIKES AFTER ALL
THAT'S WHY WE ALL BY HOMEOWNERS
INSURANCE IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF
THE SOLUTION GOING FORWARD.
NOT THE ONLY PART BUT PART OF
THAT SOLUTION GOING FORWARD.
AND THEN LET'S NOT LOSE SIGHT OF
THE BEEN A LOT OF REPORTS ABOUT
THE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS FROM
THESE FIRES.
OKAY SOME OF THOSE REPORTS
SUGGEST THAT WE'RE GETTING MORE.
CO TWO BEING RELEASED INTO THE
ENVIRONMENT ON A DAILY BASIS.
THAT IS BEING GENERATED BY THE
ENTIRE ECONOMY OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW.
THAT TELLS ME WE SHOULD BE
PRIORITIZING SOME OF THE GT R.
F. DOLLARS I KNOW YOU SOME OF
THAT. FOR FOR SOLVING SOME OF
THIS PROBLEM WE NEED TO
PRIORITIZE THAT OVER THE NEXT
FIVE TO TEN YEARS BECAUSE IF WE
DON'T DO THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO
ACHIEVE THE REDUCTIONS WE NEED.
AND THE SAME IS TRUE THERE ALSO
CAP AND TRADE DOLLARS PAID BY
THE UTILITIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY
RETURNED RATE PAYERS.
THAT'S ANOTHER POT OF MONEY THAT
CAN BE TAPPED TO HELP PAY FOR
SOME OF THE HARDENING OF THE
SYSTEM COSTS.
MOVING FORWARD SO IN CONCLUSION
WE LOOK FORWARD TO ROLLING UP
OUR SLEEVES WITH OTHERS TO FIND
A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION.
IT ISN'T PUTTING IT ALL ON PGA
NAY IT ISN'T PUTTING IT ALL ON
RATE PAYERS IT ISN'T PUTTING IT
ALL ON INSURERS.
BUT WERE WILLING I THINK ITS
RATEPAYERS TO COME TOGETHER WITH
THE REST OF THE A COMMITTEE AND
STAFF. TO FIND SOLUTIONS THAT
CAN WORK BUT IT CAN'T BE
RATEPAYERS LEFT HOLDING THE BAG.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU REPRIEVE YOUR COMMENTS
SIR HUESO.
THANK THEIR PRIMARILY I WANT TO
DIRECT MY COMMENTS MISTER LONG
BECAUSE YOU REPRESENT THE RATE
PAYERS ARE PARTICULAR INTEREST
IN WHAT YOU HAVE TO STAY YOUR
PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I'M
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT
FACT INDIRECTLY RATE PERSONAL WE
DO.
SO -- I WANT
TO KIND OF PUT THINGS A LITTLE
BIT IN THE CONTEXT BECAUSE I
WANT TO JUST MENTION THE FACT
THAT THERE WAS.
ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HERE THAT
SPOKE THE FELT THAT CLIMATE
CHANGE.
WASN'T CAUSING MORE DAMAGE
DESPITE THE EVIDENCE THAT WE
HAVE.
MORE INTENSE FIRES WE HAVE.
I'M MORE INTO ITS INTENSE DAMAGE
WE HAVE AN INCIDENT IN SAN DIEGO
IN WHICH HE I MEAN YOU MENTION
AND EVERYBODY MENTIONS A NOBODY.
HERE.
WANTS TO ABSOLVE ANYBODY FOR
THEIR NET NEGLIGENCE THAT HAS
NEVER BEEN DISCUSSES NEVER BEEN
PROPOSED NOBODY HAS SAID WELL
LET'S LOOK AT HOW WE CAN.
HOLD --
UTILITIES LESS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THEM NOT MAKING THEIR
IMPROVEMENTS OR THE FAILURE OF
THEIR QUIT MEANT THAT THEY'RE
LIABLE FOR NOBODY HAS SAID THAT
NOBODY WANTS TO DO THAT.
THERE ISN'T A PROPOSAL ON THE
TABLE THAT DOES THAT.
LET'S PUT THAT ASIDE.
BECAUSE WE DON'T I DON'T.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA DO
THAT.
AND IF THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE
THEY'RE GONNA PAY THEY AGREE
THEY WILL THEY'RE NOT LOOKING
FOR POLICIES THAT.
ABSOLVE THEM.
SO LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT.
I ADORED THE CONDITION IN WHICH
AS IN SAN DIEGO WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT SAN DIEGO ON THE
WAS A CONDITION WHICH SAN DIEGO
DID MAKE THE UPGRADES.
AND THEY DID MAINTAIN THEIR
QUITMAN THEY DID NOTHING WRONG
ENOUGH FRENCH CAME IN AND BLEW
ADELINE.
AND ANY TRIGGERED AN INVERSE
CONDEMNATION CAN CLAIM AND IT IT
RESULTED IN THIS DECISION WHICH
APPEARS HE SAID NO REPAIRS WILL
NOT PAY.
YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS.
THAT IS A DIRECT.
THAT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF IT
UNLESS YOU NEED BASICALLY ACTING
AS AN INSURANCE COMPANIES SAYING
OKAY WE'RE GONNA PAY THIS
BECAUSE THOSE DAMAGES WERE PAID
BY INSURANCE COMPANIES INSURANCE
COMPANY SUED.
S. THE GENIE AND THEY WORK ALL
THE FUNDS THAT THEY SUIT FOR
RECOVERY.
SO DO YOU BELIEVE OUR UTILITY
SHOULD BE AT AN INSURANCE.
ACT AS AN INSURANCE COMPANY. FOR
LOSSES IN THE STATE.
SENATOR AS I UNDERSTAND THE
QUESTION YEAR YOUR SUGGESTING
THAT TOM.
BUT SRI FLEW IN THAT WASN'T
WITHIN THAT RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT.
TOM FLEW INTO A LINE THAT
STARTED THE FIRE IT IS ONE OF
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
ESTA JEANNIE CONTEXT WHAT
HAPPENED WAS TREES THAT THEY
WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRIMMING
THAT WERE RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR
LINES.
WERE NOT PACKED PROPERLY TRIMMED
AND THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THAT
WE'RE GETTING INTO THE DETAILS.
BECAUSE I CAN GET INTO THE
DETAILS OF THE CASE A LITTLE BIT
MORE KNOW THAT THEY WERE CUT IN
THE WAS A TREE THAT [inaudible]
WAS WILL.
FAR FROM THE LINES IT WAS
WEAKENED BECAUSE OF THAT CUTTING
AND GET SO I MEAN.
WE'RE GETTING INTO YOU KNOW THE
DETAILS BUT GENERALLY --
ASSUMING.
THAT IT WAS.
I MEAN WAIT IT'S HARDER TO
LITIGATE THIS FROM HERE
[inaudible]
BUT GENERALLY.
IF YOU THINK CURRENTLY IN THIS
ENVIRONMENT THAT THAT'S OF THAT
THAT THEY SHOULD BE UTILITIES
ARE NOT ACTIVE ISSUES INSURANCE
NO MIGHT MY VIEW IS THAT TIME
WHEN UTILITIES ARE NEGLIGENT AND
WOOD YOU YOU ADDRESS THAT YOU
SAID THERE'S NO NO NO WORRY THAT
THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN I'VE I'VE I
I HOPE THAT THAT'S THE CASE.
I I HAVE SEEN BILLS WHAT IF
THEY'RE NOT NINETEEN EIGHTY
EIGHT IN S. B. THIRTY THREE FOR
A THIRD. EIGHT THIRTY THREE THAT
WOULD DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY IS
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BUT THAT
PUTTING THAT ASIDE.
TICKETS ARE CONCERNED THAT --
YOU RAISE I THINK IS THAT THE
UTILITIES WOULD BE HELD
SHAREHOLDERS WOULD BE HELD
RESPONSIBLE.
WHEN THEY'RE NOT NEGLIGENT AND
WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE'RE
NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE YOU
PINCH THE UTILITY SHOULD BECOME
THE INSURERS OF LAST RESORTNOR
SHOULD REPAIRS BECAUSE I HAVE
THE WOMEN DECISION HERE AND THE
WE MET DECISION?
IN IT [inaudible]
BUT DENIED THAT REPAIRS SHOULD
BE HELD RESPONSIBLE OTHER WORDS
UP UPHELD THAT REPAIRS SHOULD
NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.
AND THAT SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD PAY
THOSE DAMAGES.
BUT ALSO IN THE SAME DECISION
THEY SAID THAT THE LEGISLATURE
NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING. TO
ADDRESS THE SITUATION THAT PUTS
YOU SEE IN THE POSITION TO HAVE
TO MAKE THAT DECISION
[inaudible]
BECAUSE IT'S IT'S IT'S INHERENT
IN OUR EITHER LAW OR IN THEIR
OPINION THAT IT NEEDS
LEGISLATIVE ACTION FOR THAT NOT
HAPPEN SO.
YOUR ANSWER IS YOU DON'T BELIEVE
THEY SHOULD ACT AS INSURANCE
COMPANIES AS A P. YOU SEE FEELS
THAT THEY ARE UP WHY DON'T AGREE
THAT THAT'S THE P. UC'S VIEW BUT
I DO AGREE THAT I DO AGREE WITH
YOU THAT IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT
IT'S AT THAT IN THE REPORT.
BUT I REQUEST AS I READ.
FOUND IS THAT THE THE COMPANY
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH PRUDENT
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND AS A
RESULT IT WAS IMPRUDENT AND THAT
RATEPAYERS.
SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
UTILITIES IMPRUDENCE AND THAT
WAS WHAT THAT DECISION SAID.
AN I DO READ THE PARK WHERE HE
WHEN THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE BY
TWO THE COMMISSIONERS. TO
WITHOUT I KNOW MEASURES LECTURED
OF CHANGE CHINA A WITH TODAY
THEIR OPINION WAS WHICH I HAPPEN
NOT TO AGREE WITH WAS THAT THE
THAT THICKENS THE PRUDENT
STANDARD DOES NOT GIVE THE
COMMISSION.
THE FLEXIBILITY WOULD LIKE TO
APPORTION RESPONSIBILITY AND I
JUST DON'T I DON'T READ IT I
DON'T VIEW THE PRINCETON OF THAT
WAY I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR
MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS.
I'VE SEEN CASES WHERE THE
COMMISSION HAS IN FACT A PORTION
FOR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
EVEN WHEN UTILITY WAS FOUND IN
PRUDENT.
ANDIN MY NEXT QUESTION
FOLLOWING UP ON THAT
[inaudible]
IF.
IF IT'S THE P. YOU SEE THAT
GIVES AN HOUR AND MINUTES OF
DIFFERENT P. YOU SEE.
WHAT MONTH MOSTLY GOVERNS THE?
THE D. INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES
WHICH PRETTY MUCH MANAGE NINETY
PART OF THE PROVIDING UTILITY
AND WHAT'S 90% OF THE STATE
WHICH IS THE NAME OF THEY HAVE
THE HIGHEST LIABILITIES BECAUSE
THEY PROVIDE.
A SERVICE IN THE FORCE THAT
AREAS AND THERE'S FOREST'S.
THAT THAT ARE MAINLY IT'S OPEN
SPACE AREAS THAT ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE THE BIGGEST --
LIKELIHOOD OF FOR THESE
INCIDENTS TAKE PLACE AND THAT
THAT'S WHERE THE THIRD THE FIRES
HAVE BEEN IGNITED.
OUT THERE IN THE IN THE FORCE
[inaudible]
SO.
BUT MY QUESTION TO YOU ON THIS
IS [inaudible]
IF.
THE OTHER RESPONSES.
CLIMATE CHANGE YOU BELIEVE
CLIMATE CHNGE IS PUT IN THE
EXTRA BURDEN ON THE WAY WE AND
YOU ENGINEER OUR OUR ELECTRICAL
GRID.
ABSOLUTELY.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO
STRENGTHEN IT TO JUST FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE I THINK WE NEED
TO LOOK AT WHAT THE UTILITIES
ARE NOW DOING AND FIND WAYS TO
DO A BETTER JOB I THINK PJ NEEDS
TO BE THE FOCUSED START BECAUSE
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE
HAVING.
THE PROBLEMS DO YOU BELIEVE
REPAIR SHOULD PAY FOR THAT.
WHEN IT'S SHOWN TO BE A GOOD YOU
SURVEY PARA MONEY ABSOLUTELY IN
THE PAST WHEN IT HAS BEEN
ARGUED?
THAT THOSE UPGRADE SHOULD BE
MADE.
THERE THERE'VE BEEN SOME CASES
IN WHICH IF YOU SEE HAS NOT.
ALLOWED THOSE UPGRADES BECAUSE
OF THE PASSING OF THE CONCERN OF
PASS ENORMOUS COSTS TO THE RATE
PAYERS ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT.
WELL I I I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY
WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO BUT CAN
YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES OF
THAT HAVE HAD THAT BEEN EVER
EVER HAPPENING WHETHER.
THEY'VE BEEN REQUEST TO
STRENGTHEN THE SYSTEM THAT
THEY'VE BEEN DENIED.
BY THE PC I ACTUALLY DON'T SEE
THAT WHAT WHAT I SEE IS WITH
UTILITY SAYING I'LL GIVE YOU AN
EXAMPLE OF FEW YEARS BACK PGE
WAS HAVING A BIG PROBLEM WITH
RELY.
BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM. TO
UPGRADE THEIR OF THE RELIABILITY
I HATE WHEN USE PJ AND HE HAS A
AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE I MEAN
HONESTLY I I CAN DEFEND ANYTHING
THEY DO YOU KNOW BUT THERE ARE
OTHER UTILITIES IN THE STATE I
HOPE.
YOU COULD USE THEM ANYWAY AS AN
EXAMPLE OF THE POINT I WAS
GETTING TO IS THAT.
UTILITIES SOMETIMES OVER REACH
IN THERE SPENDING PROGRAMS AND
THEY THEY THEY WANT TO DO MOR
THAN IS A GOOD USE OF RAPE PARA
MONEY.
THEY'VE GOT TO BE FINDING WAYS
TO TO DO THE RIGHT THING TO
ADDRESS THE RIGHT PROBLEMS.
WITH A PROPERLY MEASURED IN
SCOPE PROGRAM AND WHO WOULD
DETERMINE THAT AND THAT'S THE
JOB OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION WITH THE
INPUT OF INTERVENE IS LIKE TURN
AND THE OTHER AND GREAT PAIR
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE.
SITTING WITH ME TODAY AND THE
OFFICE OF REPAIR ADVOCATES
THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE
EVERYBODY GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE AND FOR THEIR
VOICE TO BE HEARD.
OKAY AT THAT OUT OF CAPITA OKAY
THANK YOU SENATOR DODD.
ITS INTERESTING THAT FOR ALL
THREE OF YOU THAT.
JUST A STATEMENT THAT --
YA MICHAEL PICKER SAPPY FORCE
FROM THE P. YOU SEE LAST WEEK
ARE.
SEEMS LIKE LAST WEEK ALREADY
DOESN'T --
TUESDAY.
AND OPINED THAT --
THAT THE EXPENSES THAT THE
UTILITIES IN GENERAL WERE --
WERE SPENDING --
FOR MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADE OF
THEIR SYSTEMS ARE BEING SPENT
FOR THAT SO IT'S REALLY
INTERESTING TO HEAR.
YES YES SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS --
BUT SUBSIST SPECIFICALLY COMMENT
--
FOR MISTER LONG YOU SAID THAT --
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS NOT
GOOD ENOUGH.
LIKE CLINTON EIGHTY EIGHT MY
BILL -- WHAT
IS GOOD ENOUGH OF SUSPECTS
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS NOT
GOOD ENOUGH WHAT SHOULD THE
STANDARD BE?
THE STANDARD SHOULD BE WHAT
WOULD A PRUDENT MANAGER DO IN
THE SITUATION GIVEN THE FACTS
NOT THE TIME AND THAT'S THE P.
YOU SEE STANDARD THAT IT APPLIED
AND YES TO JEANNIE CASE THAT
THAT'S BEEN APPLIED BY.
STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY
FOR SINCE THE TURN OF THE LAST
CENTURY BUT I I WOULD MAKE THE
ARGUMENT THAT'S SEMANTICS BUT
THAT YOUR POINT --
THE CONCERN ABOUT S. B..
TEN EIGHTY EIGHT SIR IS THAT IS
THAT THE UTILITIES TRAFFIC PLAN
AND THERE'S A VERY RUSHED
PROCESS FOR THE PLANNED TO BE
APPROVED.
AND AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS
THAT.
UTILITIES CAN SAY WE
SUBSTANTIALLY WHAT WE DID WE
KIND OF WEEK WEEKS WE COMPLY
WITH A LOT OF IT BUT WE DIDN'T
DO AT ALL AND SO THEREFORE.
WOULD INTRANET TREE.
YOU KNOW OF THAT WAS THAT.
TRUE MOST OF THEM.
AND AND THAT'S THAT THAT'S A
GOOD LOOK AT ME LOOK AT WHAT I
CAN GET INTO SPECIFICS BUT IF
NAY IF THERE'S NEGLIGENCE --
THE UTILITY PAYS.
YEAH WE CANNOT GET DOWN TO THE
MICRO.
YOU KNOW --
PORTIONS OF ALL THESE --
YOU KNOW.
RURAL AREAS ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH
THIS TREE IN THAT TREE THAT'S A
CPU SEES RESPONSIBILITY.
AND AND I WOULD ARGUE WITH YOU
ALSO THAT --
IT HAVING IT --
NOT INVOLVED IN THE GENERAL CASE
RATE CASE.
IS A BETTER WAY.
OF GETTING TO SAFETY AND I GET
THE FACT THAT I APPRECIATE BOTH
OF YOU ALL OF YOU FOR BEING
PIERCE ADVOCATES FOR RATEPAYERS
I THINK WERE ALL.
FIERCE ADVOCATE FOR REPAIRS TO
PSYCH I I REALLY COMMEND YOU AND
THANK YOU BUT HERE'S THE DEAL.
YOU GET IN A GENERAL RATE CASE
NOBODY'S REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
SAFETY AT THE END OF THE DAY
THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND I
SHOULD SAY THAT LIKE THAT LET ME
LET ME BACK OFF THAT NOBODY.
IT TENDS TO TO GET TO THE POINT
WHERE THE FOCUS.
IT'S NOT ON SAFETY SO WHEN YOU
HAVE A GENERAL WHEN WHEN YOU
HAVE A A SEPARATE RATE CASE FOR
SAFETY ONLY [inaudible]
WHICH IS.
UP PART OF THE TEN EIGHTY EIGHT
BILL THERE'S MORE TIME AND
ATTENTION PAID TO SAFETY.
AND THE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH
SAFETY AND GIVES YOU ALL THE
OPPORTUNITY. TO OPINE ON WHAT IS
GOOD WITH THAT AND WHAT IS BAD
AS OPPOSED. TO THE LATTER WHICH
IS EVERYTHING THROWN IN --
BUT THE KITCHEN SINK AND LORD
KNOWS WHAT'S THE YOU KNOW WHAT
HAPPENS IN A MINUTE TO LET YOU
TALK OF JUST WILL. ONE SECOND
THE FINISHED BY SAYING.
I THINK THAT CPC HAS GOT A
HORRIBLE JOB.
ON SAFETY AND OVER IN REGULATING
SAFETY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
IT WE BLAME P. JEANNIE AND THEY
DESERVE A LOT OF BLAME BUT THE
CPUC OVERSIGHT OF P. JEANNIE IT
EVERY SINGLE INVESTOR OWNED
UTILITY IS LACKS.
THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE WE
HEARD IT THE OTHER DAY THEY SAID
SO DAMN MUCH BUT THE SAID SO
LITTLE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I PICKED UP FROM
DAMAGE TO YOUR POINT I AND I'M
NOT GONNA AND CERTAINLY NOT
GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU
CENTER DOT ON ON THAT POINT
ABOUT EXPEDITING THIS PROCESS --
YOU KNOW WHEN THERE IS A SAFETY
SITUATION I GUARANTEE SAFETY
WILL BE FRONT AND CENTER
IMPEACHING THESE NEXT SEVERAL
RATE CASE WHETHER WE SEPARATED
ARE NOT THE SAME HAPPENED WITH
P. GINNY'S GENERATE CASE RIGHT
AFTER -- THE
SAME BRUNO INCIDENT THAT.
ENTIRELY ON SAFETY WE SOUGHT
WITH LISA CANYON AND IN SO CAL
GASES RATE CASE FOLLOWING LISA
CANYON THEY'RE ASKING FOR A
MASSIVE RATE INCREASE TO
ADDRESS.
SAFETY FOR LISA CANYON SO IT
DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY CAN WE
IMPROVE IT SURE.
AND CAN WE WORK WITH YOU TO FIND
A YOU KNOW A WAY TO DO THAT SURE
ABSOLUTELY WE CAN YOU KNOW WE
CAN IMPROVE ON THE PROCESS AT
THE CPUC.
THIS STUFF DOES NEED TO GET DONE
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE
THERE IS A PERVERSEINCENTIVE
FOR UTILITIES TO OVERSPEND
PARTICULARLY ON CAPITAL
PROJECTS.
THE MORE THEY SPEND THE MORE
SHAREHOLDERS MAKE AND WE HAVE TO
ADDRESS THAT INVERSE.
AGREE PURSE BUT IT'S JUST IT
INVERSE I'M SORRY PERVERSE.
I'VE SAID IN VERSE SO MANY TIMES
IN THE LAST FEW EXCEPT PERVERSE
INCENTIVE TO OVERSPEND SO THAT
IS WHY I THINK IT'S RATE PAYERS
WE INSIST ON HAVING A PROCESS.
TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE TIME TO
LOOK THROUGH THAT WERE OUT ROUTE
NUMBER.
I CAN GET ON A CALL ON A RATE
CASE WITH PGA NAY WITHOUT YOU
KNOW ME AND EIGHT OF THEIR
ATTORNEYS ON THE OTHER.
END OF THE PHONE BECAUSE THEY'RE
JUST THEY LAWYER UP AND THEY'RE
THEY'RE JUST MUCH MORE PREPARED.
SO WE'RE ALWAYS AT A
DISADVANTAGE IS RATEPAYERS IN
THAT PROCEEDING SO WE'RE JUST
LOOKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS STUFF.
IS PRUDENT IS NECESSARY AND
ISN'T JUST YOU KNOW THE
UTILITIES PATTING SHAREHOLDER
PROFITS AND SO THERE'S A WAITED
TO FIGURE THAT OUT WITH YOU AND
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT
OPPORTUNITY THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIRMAN IF I'M IF I
MIGHT ADD TO THAT INCREASE WITH
MS FROM MR BROKEN DORIS SAID
REGARDING --
YOU KNOW THE FACT THAT I THINK
IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE A
SCENARIO WHICH SAFETY IS NOT
FRONT AND CENTER.
IN ALL THE UPCOMING GENERATE
CASES.
AT THE TIES IN WITH MISTER --
WAIT THE SENATE RACES QUESTION
--
REGARDING DOESN'T THAT YOU
CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE IMPACT
HERE I THINK WE CAN'T THAT STATE
THIS DIFFICULT TO DENY --
YET THE THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE
ISSUES SUCH AS THE STATE
RESOURCES AND GIGI R. F. FOR
SOME OTHER YOU KNOW ENTITY
SENATOR --
HUESO COULD PLAY A ROLE.
YOU KNOW IN THAT DODD DISCUSSION
BECAUSE THERE IS THAT STATE BUT
INTEREST IN PREVENTING THE
RELEASE OF CARBON.
EMISSIONS IN THERE IS AT SEA
INTEREST IN THE FORESTRY
POLICIES THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED
TO THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN
THERE IS A STATE INTEREST IN
PROTECTING.
OUR THE LIVES OF THE CITIZENS OF
THE STATE I THINK THERE IS THAT
NEXUS THERE AND IT YOU KNOW THE
NEW NORMAL YOU KNOW CERTAINLY
CALLS FOR A RE EVALUATION OF OF
HOW THOSE RESOURCES HAVE BEEN
INVESTED TODAY.
BUT TO CENTER ON CHAIR MISTER
CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION.
WELL I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO
IMAGINE SIR I THINK OUR ISSUE.
YOU KNOW WITH TEN EIGHTY EIGHT
NOT TO RELITIGATE THAT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION BUT WHAT WAS SIMPLY
THAT THE PROCESS WAS WE FELT NOT
BALANCED IN THE WAY THAT IT
SHOULD BE SO [inaudible]
I THINK.
WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY IMPROVE
OUR BEYOND WHERE WE ARE TODAY OR
WE HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY.
THANK YOU.
US SEEM NO OTHER QUESTIONS WHO.
EXCUSE YOU WE APPRECIATE YOUR
PRESENTATION.
I WILL NOW TURN THE PUBLIC
COMMENT SECTION OVER TO SENATOR
DOG.
OKAY --
ABILITY WITH THE CENTER IS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOLDEN THAT HOW
MANY PEOPLE OR PLANNING ON
THAT'S OKAY.
NOW HOLD YOUR RIGHT HEADS UP DO
YOU REMEMBER.
IT'S ALWAYS WHERE THE YOU KNOW
THE RULES.
ALRIGHT LET'S DO THIS.
FIXTURES CO CHAIR AND MEMBERS
CREEK COOK REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY FIRST.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK AND
COMMEND THIS COMMITTEE FOR THE
TRANSPARENCY OF THIS PROCESS.
WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
TO WORK WITH YOU AS THIS PROCESS
DEVELOPS.
IT'S EPA CONSIST OF SIXTEEN SOME
ARE OWNED LOCAL PUBLICLY
PUBLICLY ELECTRIC UTILITIES
PART ELECTED BOARDS DEMAND THAT
WE OPERATE NAY SAFE AND RELIABLE
MANNER.
OUR CUSTOMERS EXPECT TO PAY FOR
THAT.
WE SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSED A OF OF A PROPOSAL THAT
WAS BEFORE YOU TODAY.
BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT.
A FEW OF NUMBER OF OUR MEMBERS
BORDER ON FORCE LANDS TWO OF
THOSE READING AND SHASTA CITY
YOU'VE BEEN READING ABOUT MOST
RECENTLY.
WE HAVE OUR HYDRO FACILITY PLAN
AND OUR GEOTHERMAL PLANT THAT
ARE LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF
FOREST LAND WE STRONGLY URGES
COMMITTEE AND THE LEGISLATURE TO
DROP AN AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM.
OF FORCE MANAGEMENT I THINK
WE'LL ALL WIN THANK YOU THANK
YOU NEXT BIGGER.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS DENNIS
NEIL JONES AND SINCE AUGUST I'M
SORRY SINCE DECEMBER FOURTH I'VE
BEEN PROVIDING PRO BONO LEGAL
SERVICES TO HUNDREDS OF THOMAS
FIRE VICTIMS.
AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM THE
TRENCHES THAT ALL IS NOT WELL IN
THE INSURANCE RECOVERY AREA.
AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW MOST
HOMEOWNERS ARE UNDER INSURED FOR
COVERAGE A IN ADDITION SOME
LENDERS ARE NOT ALLOWING THEIR
CUSTOMERS TO REBUILD THEIR
HOMES.
ONCE THEY RECEIVE TOTAL LOSS
SETTLEMENTS FROM THEIR INSURANCE
COMPANY.
INSTEAD THEY'RE REQUIRING THAT
THOSE INSURANCE SETTLEMENTS BE
APPLIED TO THE LOAN BALANCE
LEAVING THE HOMEOWNERS UNABLE TO
REBUILD.
MANY HAVE GIVEN UP AND SO AS A
RESULT.
OF LOTS FOR SALE IN VENTURA.
FROM PEOPLE THAT CANNOT HAVE
HAVE MADE THE DECISION THAT THEY
CANNOT REBUILD.
STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IN
INVERSE CONDEMNATION CASES
RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT
PROVIDING ELECTRICITY IS A
HAZARDOUS ACTIVITY.
IT ALSO RECOGNIZES THE INHERENT
DISPARITY IN POWER BETWEEN THE
CONSUMER.
AND BETWEEN A GOVERNMENTAL
SPONSORED UTILITY THANK YOU WRAP
UP REAL QUICK YES.
UP THIS BILL IS IMPOSING A
BALANCING ACT THAT WILL STACK
THE DECK IN FAVOR OF UTILITIES
HOW MANY HOUSES MAKE YOU LEARN
IN ORDER THANK YOU.
THANK. FOR EVERYBODY'S
EDIFICATION THERE IS NO BILL YET
WERE DISAPPEARING WERE LEARNING
THEIR WILL BE SET AT SOME POINT
TIME.
NEXT WEEK MR JOB MISTER HOLDEN
AND MEMBERS I'M GARY PASSED MORE
THE CONGRESS OF CALIFORNIA
SENIORS IN GRATEFUL FOR YOUR UP
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.
WELL ANY PROPOSAL WITH THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT ELECTRIC RATES
IN CALIFORNIA ARE DRAWS OUR
ATTENTION AND THAT'S BECAUSE SO
MANY SENIORS LIVE ON FIXED
INCOMES THAT HAVE VERY LITTLE
FLEXIBILITY. TO AFFORD UTILITY
INCREASES.
WE ASK FOR CHANGE IN THE
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS I MEAN
PROPOSED.
PAUL ON THE ISSUE OF INVERSE
[inaudible]
CONDEMNATION BECAUSE WITHOUT IT.
BOB ARE HIGHER UTILITY BILLS
WILL CERTAINLY FACE SENIORS ON
FIXED INCOMES.
WITHOUT REFORMS UTILITIES WILL
BE SUBJECTED TO HIGHER FINANCING
COSTS INCREASED INSURANCE
PREMIUMS.
AND IT WILL BE AT THE COST OF
ALTERNATELY BE PASSED ALONG TO
CUSTOMERS WE BELIEVE THAT THE
STATE APPLICATION OF INVERSE
CONDEMNATION.
IS INHERENTLY FLAWED.
VISITORS ZOOMS THE DAMAGE COSTS
SHOULD BE SOCIALIZED AMONG
CUSTOMERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH UP NEXT
SPEAKER CAN YOU HOLD FOR SECOND
DAVID WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO NOW.
S. MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS GOOD
AFTERNOON DAVID WOLFE THE HOWARD
JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION.
MEMBERS WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN AN
ADVOCATE FOR PRIVATE
PROPERTY-RIGHTS AND PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP
INCLUDING RESTRICTING THE TAKING
OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PRIVATE
USE.
WE ARGUE THAT MAINTAINING
INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND ITS
CURRENT FORM PROTECTS HOMEOWNERS
THEY GET TO SEE JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THEIR PROPERTY
YOU ALSO ENSURING THAT THEY
DON'T GET SETTLED FOR COSTS.
REGARDING WILDFIRE LIABILITY
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM
IT'S WORTH NOTING AYE OR USE OUR
BECAUSE I GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.
THEY ARE A MONOPOLY AND HAVE THE
PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN
AS WELL AS A GUARANTEED RATE OF
RETURN [inaudible]
INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
ENSURING THAT REMAINS IN PLACE
--
YOU KNOW FORCES BECAUSE I USED
TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE
FIRES AND MEMBERS WE'VE NEVER
AGREED WITH SENATOR JACKSON MORE
ON ANY PLANE.
THOUGH BUT HOWEVER MEMBERS AND
I'LL JUST MISTER CHAIRMAN ALL
WRAPPED UP WITH THIS IT IS
BEYOND HHS PURVIEW TO ADDRESS
THE QUESTIONS OF WHETHER I YOU
SHOULD BE BAILED OUT OR GO
BANKRUPT.
BUT WE WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT
IN THE PURVIEW OF THE
LEGISLATURE EITHER WE WOULD
ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT THE BUSINESS
OF THE LEGISLATURE TO AND SAT
OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OF STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL TAKINGS LAW.
AND PRECEDENT THERE ARE THREE
SEPARATE LAWSUITS RIGHT NOW TO
DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION DAVID.
ANTIETAM OKAY YES MISTER
CHAIRMAN WAS BRIAN WHITE HERE ON
BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT
OF WATER AND POWER.
ON TUESDAY HER FROM OUR CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER ABOUT THE
PROACTIVE MEASURES THAT WE ARE
TAKING. TO ADDRESS WILDFIRE
THREATS TO PROTECT OUR
RATEPAYERS.
BUT THAT BEING SAID WE DO
BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A
PROSPECT FIX TO STRICT LIABILITY
STANDARD.
ONGOING WE THINK OUR OUR
RATEPAYERS NEED TO BE MADE SURE
THAT THE ISSUES GOING FORWARD
ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING
RETROSPECTIVE A RETROACTIVE. FOR
THOSE REASONS WE LOOK FOR
WORKING WITH COMEDIAN AND
SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
GOING FORWARD THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE I JUST MOLD
PHILIP CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION ALSO SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF WESTERN EDITOR AND WE
DO THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE
REFORMED TO THE STATUS QUO.
BOTH IN TERMS OF THE SWIFT
IMPLEMENTATION IS FIRE
PREVENTION MANAGEMENT PLANS ARE
BUT ALSO AT LONG TERM LOOKING AT
REFORM LIABILITY. TO ENSURE A
RELIABLE SOURCE OF ENERGY --
FOR OUR FOLKS ALSO HONORS SAID
HERDED --
THESE HEARINGS AND HEARD IT
AGAIN TWICE TODAY FUEL LOADS
FUEL LOADS FUEL LOADS LIVESTOCK
GRAZING --
IS A ACADEMICALLY I RECOGNIZE
WAY TO A REDUCE FUEL LOADS AND
SO AS WE TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE
GOING TO PAY.
THESE DAMAGES WE ALSO NEED TO
TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA
PREVENT BECAUSE FIRES AND AND
AND NOT ONLY FORCE HEALTH.
INCLUDES YOU NOTHING BUT ALSO
DOES INCLUDE LIVESTOCK GRAZING
SO PLEASE KEEP THAT FOR FOR YOUR
MIND THANK YOU.
WELL YES EDMAN LOMBARD I'M
REPRESENTING THE OF LOS ANGELES
OF CIVIL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
BLACK PASTORS TO BLACK BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION AND A NUMBER OF OF
THE MINORITY.
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE GO
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSITION AS FAR AS
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS
CONCERNED.
THANK YOU NEXT BIGGER LARA
PRESIDENT ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
SOMEWHERE HERE BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK ANY OF YOU BEEN
CONSIDERING NECESSARILY.
THE IMPACT OF ALL OF THIS SUMMER
SCHOOLS I'M AS YOU KNOW
ESPECIALLY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE
REPRESENTING AREAS WHO ON HAVE
HAD TO ENDURE THESE HORRIBLE
FIRES AT SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN
DESTROYED.
ARE ON STUDENTS AND OUR
EMPLOYEES HOMES HAVE BEEN
DESTROYED AND THE IMPACT HAS
BEEN SIGNIFICANT WE HAVE FEW
RESOURCES REALLY AVAILABLE TO
RECONSTRUCT OUR SCHOOLS AND SO.
WE ARE HERE TO OPPOSE THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WILL HAVE A
LETTER DROPPING TOMORROW TAPER
OUTLINED THE REST OF OUR
CONCERNS.
THANK YOU NEXT SPEAKER NVIDIA
WITH THE COALITION FOR ADEQUATE
SCHOOL HOUSING AND WE WOULD LIKE
TO ASSOCIATE.
OURSELVES WITH THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKERS --
COMMENTS AND THE TORY TO BE
FORTHCOMING LETTER [inaudible]
WELL DONE [inaudible]
NEXT SPEAKER.
THE AFTERNOON MEMBERS ROB NASH
AMERICANS STATURE GROWERS I JUST
WANT TO REQUEST THAT AS YOU MOVE
FOR WORKING ON POLICY ROOM
MEMBER -- TO
CONSIDER THE IMPACT IS GOING TO
HAVE ON THE CONSUMER WHO WEARS
MANY HATS IN THE SINCE YOU
SITUATION WHETHER IT BE AS A
RATE PAYER.
OR THE POLICYHOLDER THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE LARA KNOW AND
HATE YOU COME BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA CITRUS MUTUAL
CALIFORNIA CONGENERS IN GROWERS
ASSOCIATION YOU SEE FARMERS
LEAGUE IN WESTERN ON PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION --
YOU HEARD A LOT OF INFORMATION
TODAY UNFORTUNATELY FROM SOME OF
THE THE FIRST THREE PANELS QUITE
CONFLICTING --
BUT ONE THING THAT REMAIN THE
SAME AS THAT THE BACKSTOP FOR
LIABILITY THE BACKSTOP FOR
HURTING THE SYSTEM AND THE
BACKSTOP.
FOR WILDFIRE PREVENTION SEEMS TO
FALL ON THE RATE PAYERS AND WE
JUST CAN'T BE LEFT HOLDING THE
BAG -- EYES
THE LAST PANEL SAID AS REPAIRS
WE ARE.
READY AND WILLING TO ROLL UP OUR
SLEEVES WE HAVE.
A LOT OF IDEAS ABOUT HOW THIS
COULD BE A SHARED COST BETWEEN
ALL THE PARTIES THAT BENEFIT
FROM A SAFE AND RELIABLE SYSTEM
NOT JUST THE RATE PAYERS.
THAT MAY INVOLVE INVERSE REFORM
IT ALSO INVOLVES SHAREHOLDERS
OWNING UP SOME OF THE MONEY AND
IT INVOLVES WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT
INSURANCE TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE
ARE COVERED.
THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIRMAN THE MEMBERS
MIGHT MATIC COUNSEL FOR CONSUMER
WATCHDOG AND CERTAIN YOU'RE SURE
OF OUR POSITION OF OPPOSITION OF
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL.
AND LEAVE YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING
OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID
TODAY WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE
GREAT WEIGHT THAT WAS SAID BY
TWO ATTORNEYS HERE ONE FOR THE
CONSUMERS ATTORNEYS.
AND THE OTHER LORD HELP ME FROM
THE ENSURE.
WELL GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER
CHAIRMAN OR BOTH CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS --
HUNDREDS TURN FOR IBEW LOCAL
TWELVE FORTY FIVE OUR MEMBERS
WORK FOR THE UTILITIES --
THOUGH ONE SPECIFICALLY
MENTIONED HERE TODAY WOULD P.
GINNY AND SMILED AND AND WE
PACIFIC THEY LIKE TO THANK ARLEN
OUR ORCHARD FOR COMING IN
APPEARING BEFORE YOU --
SIMPLY PUT A WE WANT WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE
UTILITIES.
I USE AMPERE USE ARE FINANCIALLY
VIABLE AND I UNDERSCORE VIABLE
--
THEY NEED TO BE HERE FOR OUR
MEMBERS TO WORK AND FOR THAT OUR
MEMBERS TO SERVE THEIR CUSTOMERS
--
AND AS MISTER JOSEPH DID POINT
OUT -- WE
DON'T WANT UTILITIES AND THEIR
CUSTOMERS TO BE INSURANCE
COMPANIES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THEY CAN NEXT FEATURE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS CARRIE
TIMBER WITH THE SIERRA BUSINESS
COUNCIL I WOULD LIKE TO AYE
MYSELF WITH HE PREVIOUS SPEAKER
REGARDING THE VIABILITY THE
NECESSARY VIABILITY OF
UTILITIES.
IF I UTILITIES GO UNDER RURAL
AREAS LIKE THE SIERRA WILL BE
TERRIBLY IMPACTED WE'RE SO
LEGISLATING OURSELVES ON THIS
COMPLICATED ISSUE BUT IN GENERAL
WE DO SUPPORT AN EXPLORATION OF
A MECHANISM THAT WILL BUY US
SOME TIME TO DEVELOP A LONGER
TERM SOLUTION.
WE BELIEVE THAT SOLUTION NEEDS
TO ADDRESS THE UTILITY BUSINESS
MODEL IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE
RISK LIABILITY AND THE RISE OF
ALTERNATIVE PROVIDERS.
ADDRESS THE URGENT NEED TO
INVEST IN INCREASED PACE AND
SCALE OF FORCE MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES AND FIND WAYS TO
CAPITALIZE ON THE ECONOMIC
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CALL
BENEFITS OF INCREASED FUEL
REDUCTION AND FORCE MANAGEMENT
THANK YOU THANK YOU NEXT SPEAKER
POLICE.
GOOD AFTERNOON I'M SORRY THAT
SENATOR WAS SO IT'S NOT HERE
BECAUSE I WAS PARTICULARLY
CONCERNED TO HEAR HIM ASK IF.
AUTUMN WE BELIEVE THE UTILITIES
COMPANIES SHOULD BE --
THE LIGHT THE INSURERS A A RP
I'M REPRESENTING THREE MILLION
MEMBERS 90% OF OUR MEMBERS VOTE.
THEY ARE WATCHING VERY CLOSELY I
HAVE OVER FOURTEEN HUNDRED
LETTERS WITH ME THAT WILL BE
DELIVERED TO EACH ONE OF YOU.
SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR FROM THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING THAT NO
NOT ONE PARTY SHOULD BE HELD
LIABLE FOR THE COSTS.
OR THE SAFETY.
THE QUESTION WE HAVE IS. FIFTEEN
BILLION DOLLARS AND SAFETY
PLANNING.
WHERE HAS THAT MONEY BEEN SPENT?
AND WHY ARE WE FACING SOME OF
THE MOST DEVASTATING FIRES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH IF YOU.
NEXT BE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS
VIRGINIA FAIR ON THE TONY I ALSO
WOMAN VOLUNTEER FOR OUR WANNA
THANK ALL OF YOU VERY MUCH IS
BEEN A LONG HEARING.
WE'VE HAD A LOT TO CONSIDER.
ANYWAY I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT YOUR SUPPORTING OUR
RATEPAYERS AND REALLY LOOKING AT
AVENUES TO MAKE THINGS JUST AND
FAIR FOR EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU PICKS SPEAKER.
MEMBERS SHARE MEMBERS ARE JIM
CUNNINGHAM --
VAUGHN ZERO WITH ARE ALSO A ROOM
WE ARE.
CONCERNED THAT UTILITY COMPANIES
FOR ME TEN ACTION.
THERE AND BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
AND THEY DON'T PASS IT ON TO
REPAIRS MORE SORRY PRAYERS ARE
SENIORS.
BLOWING CAM AND RENEWAL LIMITED
LIMITED INCOME SO READ WE DON'T
WANT TO REPAIR SOME [inaudible]
THANK [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
NEXT SPEAKER.
BUT AFTERNOON MEMBERS CRISTINA
GALLAGHER ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS.
THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
SHARES THE CONCERNS OF C. SACK
AND REMAINS OPPOSED TO ANY
CHANGE PRODUCES LIABILITY.
ADDITIONALLY IF THIS DOES MOVE
FORWARD AND THE RETROACTIVITY OF
THE CHANGE NEEDS TO CLEARLY
INCLUDE THE INITIAL BECAUSE OF
LIABILITY AND PROXIMA EVENTS
THAT OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE
INITIAL BECAUSE AND SEEING A
BARBER WE ARE SPECIFICALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE THOMAS FIRE
IN THE RESULT IN JANUARY TO PRE.
FLOW STATED BY SENATOR
JACKSON'S.
THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH XP
WHO POLICE.
GOOD AFTERNOON HONORABLE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND
ALSO TO HEAR THE A PRESENTATIONS
OF ALL THE PANELS OVER FROM THE
SEVERAL DAYS [inaudible]
IT.
GIVES ME PAUSE WHEN I HEAR THAT
WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT MORE FROM
UTILITIES WITH A REASONABLENESS
STANDARD AS OPPOSED TO STRICT
LIABILITY.
SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO BE VERY
CAREFUL IN THE THAT
CONSIDERATION --
I THINK IT WAS MISTER LONG WHO
SAID IN ONE OF THE PANELS THAT
HE WAS RECOMMENDING YOU ADOPT.
A MODIFIED VERSION OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WHICH WE'D
BE.
THE SAFETY PORTIONS BUT NOT THE
BLANK CHECK DON'T TAKE AWAY THE
STRICT LIABILITY RIGHT NOW I I
THINK THERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES
THAT.
DEPEND ON EACH OTHER AS YOU
ANALYZE THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF
THOSE NEED MORE TIME TO BE
CONSIDERED THANK YOU NEXT
LIQUOR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MY NAME IS
SO SEPARATE ISLAM HERE
REPRESENTING OUR HISPANICS AND
ENERGY AND LET YOU KNOW TURN
ONLY I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF A A
RP.
AND SO -- WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S
--
NOTION OF TAKING ANOTHER LOOK AT
INVERSE CONDEMNATION.
WE ALSO I HAVE STUDIED SOME OF
THE ISSUES AROUND WILDFIRES AND
ARE REALLY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE WHOLENESS IN THE
COMPLETENESS OF THAT REVIEW --
BUT THAT WE THINK YOU'RE ON THE
RIGHT COURSE AND WE HOPE THAT
YOU CONTINUE MAKING THESE --
HEARINGS AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS OUT
THE REASON WE SUPPORT THE
MODIFICATION IS BECAUSE SO YOU
KNOW WE'RE DEEPLY CONCERNED
ABOUT OTHER COSTS TO RATEPAYERS.
AND THAT WE THINK THAT THERE'S
DEFINITELY SHOULD BE A BALANCE
AND ON THEA COSTS FOR THESE SIR.
TREMENDOUS HAVE HIS TISSUES
THANK YOU [inaudible]
CERN NEXT [inaudible]
SPEAKER.
GOOD AFTERNOON COMMITTEE MEMBERS
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY
MY NAME IS GLEN FUJI NATIONAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF A PAPA.
ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ORGANIZATION.
AND YOU KNOW WE REPRESENT THE
AYE API COMMUNITIES IN THE CITY
AND WERE VERY AWARE OF THE RISK
OF THESE WILDFIRES IT'S A BIG
CHALLENGE STATEWIDE.
THEN IMPACTS ALL OF US IN THE
ENTIRE STATE.
AND AND WITH THESE MOST RECENT
CATASTROPHIC FIRES WE WE ALL.
WE AGREE THAT WE MUST COME UP
WITH BETTER SOLUTIONS IN LOSS TO
PROTECT ENERGY FUTURES IN THERE
AND THEN THAT WERE ALL DEPENDENT
ON AND AND WE KNOW THAT THE
UTILITY SHOULD BE A SHOULD BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR
ACTIONS AND AND WE WE WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR.
SPOKE. TO BELIEVE THAT THERE
SHOULD BE ABALANCE AT THE END
OF THE DAY.
AND WE WE FEEL THAT WE MUST ACT
NOW BECAUSE SIR YOU KNOW WE HAVE
NOT EVEN REACHED THE PEAK OF THE
SEASON SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON LEE ANY TAKA ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA ASIAN
PACIFIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
WE BELIEVE THAT REFORM IS
NECESSARY OR FACING THE REALITY
OF CLIMATE CHANGE WITH NATURAL
DISASTERS THEIR INCREASING
INCREASINGLY MORE FREQUENT AND
MORE SEVERE.
OUR CURRENT OUTDATED LAWS
JEOPARDIZE THE ABILITY TO INVEST
IN MAKING OUR ENERGY GRID MORE
RESILIENT.
IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR REFORM WE
NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIND
BETTER SOLUTIONS AND POLICIES
THAT PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS
BUSINESSES AND THE ECONOMY THANK
YOU [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
HI GOOD AFTERNOON MANY ME STINKY
DOLLAR I AM THE PRESIDENT UP
CLOSE E. ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN
ADVOCATES AND WE HAVE OVER FIFTY
AFFILIATED AT CHAPTERS.
AND BASED IN WASHINGTON DC.
NOW MORE THAN EVER WE HAVE TO
PUT UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION
AND LOST THE PROTECT THE ENERGY
AND FUTURE WE ALL DEPENDS ON
THANK YOU HAVE A GREAT AFTERNOON
[inaudible]
XP HER.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS ALVIN
THEY OWN AMEND IBEW TALL FORTY
FIVE MEMBER.
ARMAN OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS
WORK FOR I USE AND PURE USE
ALIKE UP PLEASE ENSURE THAT.
CALL UTILITIES REMAIN ENOUGH
FINANCIALLY VIABLE BY REFORMING
CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT APPLICATION
OF THE INVERSE CONDEMNATION
THANK [inaudible]
RIGHT GROWERS.
BY THE WAY THANK YOU ALL VERY
MUCH FOR BEING HERE WE HAD FOUR
FIVE FOR ONE THERE.
OR THANK YOU.
THAT YOU GO TO THE CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTING OVER FORTY A
PUBLICLY OWNED ELECTRIC
UTILITIES AROUND THE STATE WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT
MATTER --
AND TAKING ALSO COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF
WILDFIRES AND JUST REITERATE AS
OUR THAN ORCHARD THAT THE CEO OF
* SAID WE ARE A LOCALLY
GOVERNED A NOT FOR PROFIT
ENTITIES WITHOUT SHAREHOLDERS.
AND WE STAND READY TO WORK WITH
THIS COMMITTEE ON THESE
IMPORTANT ISSUES THANK YOU
[inaudible]
NEXT.
I MICROBES IN HERE ON BEHALF THE
TRINITY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
AND NOT WALKING AWAY WITH THE
C..
AIDS TEST MONEY BUT TO SIMPLY.
LAYING OUT M. IT YOU HEARD ON
TUESDAY THAT PART OF THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES LIKE TRINITY IN THEY
THINK YOU HEARD IT FROM OUR
ORCHARD EARLIER --
THEY THEY TRINITY ITSELF HAS A A
LOT OF FEDERAL LAND THAT THEY
THAT THEY DON'T CONTROL IN THIS
MUCH IS A AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD
LIKE TO REDUCE FUEL LOAD.
THEY CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH WITHOUT
APPROVAL FROM THE FEDERAL TORT
FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS.
AND THE I'M GET THE WORD ARE
STRICTLY LIABLE.
IN THAT WAY AND SO ON WE'D ASK
FOR A SUPPORT OF A CHANGE IN THE
STRICT LIABILITY THINKS THANK
YOU NEXT BAKER.
AB MAGANA HALF THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER THIRTY
ALSO REPRESENTING ELEVEN PUBLIC
AND UTILITIES IN SUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND ONE AND I AM
IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
I WOULD LIKE TO LINE MY COMMENTS
WITH THOSE OF THE MUNICIPAL
UTILITY ASSOCIATION THANK YOU.
TO ENFORCE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA
LIKE JULY MY COMMENTS WITH C.
SACK ABOUT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SPEAKERS WE ARE OPPOSED TO THAT
PROVISION THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL INVERSE CONDEMNATION
WE'VE DO BELIEVE IT'S
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THAT THE COMMITTEE LOOK
AT OTHER ISSUES WHICH COULD BE
DONE WITHOUT THE LITIGATION
THAT.
AT SUCH A CHANGE WOULD WHAT
IMPACT ON EVERYBODY HERE --
IN AND DELAYS A WE WOULD INSTEAD
ON ACID YOU LOOK AT CA TEAM
PREVENTION AND ANOTHER ISSUES
THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS TALKED
ABOUT A SET OF CHANGING
SOMETHING.
THAT IS VERY COMPLICATED AND
THERE ON TIME CONSEQUENCES THAT
WE BELIEVE WILL HAPPEN IF SUCH A
MAJOR CHANGES MADE ON THIS LATE
IN THE SESSION THANK YOU.
THANK YOU NEXT SPEAKER.
MY NAME IS JOHN DEAVER'S I LIVE
IN SANTA ROSA.
WE'VE BEEN REPEATEDLY TOLD TODAY
THIS ISN'T ABOUT LEADING
UTILITIES OFF THE HOOK ALL THAT
DOES IS REMIND ME THE WAY WE
MAKE A LIFE THE TRUTH IS TO KEEP
REPEATING IT.
CALLING UP CLIMATE CHANGE WHEN
UTILITY EQUIPMENT STARTS A FIRE.
IT'S A CAN OF BLAMING THE
GASOLINE FOR THE ARSON.
I WISH I HAD MORE TIME TO
DISCUSS MATTERS IN DETAIL I WISH
MY PARTNER'S MOTHER LINDA TUNIS
HAD HAD MORE TIME BUT SHE WAS A
VICTIM IN THE OCTOBER WILDFIRES.
P. GENIES TRAGIC HISTORY IS ONE
OF CRIMINALITY AND LETHAL ATTY
THAT EXTENDS FOR DECADES WITH
INVERSE CONDEMNATION IN EFFECT.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RATIONALIZE
UTILITY SAFETY RECORDS WILL
IMPROVE IF NOW GIVEN SHIELDING
FROM IT.
GIVEN THE PROFOUND AND FAR
REACHING IMPACT OF THE WE GAVE
IT TO REACH A DECISION NOW TO
OBLIGE THE GOVERNOR.
OR ANYONE ELSE'S TIME FRAME IS
BOTH HEART BREAKING AND AN
EMBARRASSMENT [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SIR [inaudible]
NEXT SPEAKER.
CORRECT NEW MEMBERS JOINING
CANETTI CALIFORNIA'S PANIC
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
REPRESENTING OUR SEVENTY
CHAMBERS.
AND THEIR MEMBERS THROUGHOUT
THIS GREAT STATE TOO MANY OF
THEM HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THE
FIRES BOTH LAST YEAR AND THIS
YEAR.
ARM.
WE FEEL THAT WITHOUT REFORM OUR
CURRENT OUTDATED LAWS JEOPARDIZE
THE ABILITY TO INVEST IN MAKING
OUR ENERGY OUR ENERGY GRID MORE
RESILIENT.
IN THE FACE OF THESE INCREASING
OUR CHANGING OUT WHETHER AND SO
WE FEEL THAT THE GOVERNOR'S UP
PROPOSAL.
ARE IS A BALANCED ONE BOND
STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE FOR
ALL INVOLVED.
A WILL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO
HAVE BETTER SOLUTIONS OF
POLICIES THAT PROTECT OUR
RESIDENTS BUSINESSES AND OUR
ECONOMY THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MIKE MORRELL LAST WORD
ON THE CONSIDER ALL MICHAEL
MILLER CALPERS CESSATION Y.
GROUP GROWERS AYE CHAIRS A
MEMBERS WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
TAKING ON THIS INCREDIBLY --
LARGE UNDERTAKING AS PRIDE THE
SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE THE LET'S
BUT THE LET'S WHICH WILL TAKE ON
THIS YEAR.
ARMED VISION OF WIDE MICAJAH
FIRES THAT OCTOBER WERE
DEVASTATING --
TRAGIC IS.
JUST ONE WAY AT DESCRIBING THE
LOSS -- ONE
THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THAT IS
THAT AGRICULTURE AG LAND VENDORS
HAD IT BECOME A FIRE BREAK
ACTUALLY SERVED A VERY VERY
VALUABLE PURPOSE.
IN PROTECTING AND FIGHTING THAT
GETS US FIRES ARE RECENT
REPORTED SCIENCE MAGAZINE IN
MARCH OF THIS YEAR RECOMMENDED
PUBLIC POLICY IS A QUOTE.
PROMOTE AGRICULTURE USE OF THE
WILD AND URBAN INTERFACE
ADDITIONALLY THE REPORT STATED.
OF AGRICULTURE BILLS CAN
PASSIVELY PROTECT URBAN AREAS
AND DIE WILL INFRASTRUCTURE IN
ADDITION FACILITATING BUT
FIREFIGHTING.
OF THE SUPPRESSION OF IGNITIONS.
ESSENTIALLY I'M I'M GLAD I'M
GLAD THAT THE COMMITTEE IS
TAKING ON THIS ISSUE RELATIVE TO
THINK ABOUT HOW.
YOUR POLICIES AFFECT THE ECONOMY
OF AGRICULTURE AND ALSO PROTECT
AGRICULTURAL LAND AS VALUABLE
YOU SUPPORTING FIRES THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
[inaudible]
Q. [inaudible]
WELL.
THAT CONCLUDES A LONG DAY OF
TESTIMONY AND DISCUSSION AND
QUESTIONS FROM A FROM CENTERS IN
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS ON THIS --
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE I DO
APPRECIATE MEMBERS THE PUBLIC
AND STAKEHOLDERS BEING HERE
TODAY.
TO OFFER YOUR POINT OF VIEW --
WE WILL HAVE --
BOARD. FOR MORE HEARINGS.
AT LEAST --
YOU ON THE ISSUES OF RESILIENCY
EVERYBODY'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT
THAT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO JUST
TO JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR WE
WANTED TO GET IN THE EACH ONE OF
THE SECTIONS --
OF YEAH I OF TOPICS THAT WE
THINK --
WERE IMPORTANT.
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOME PLAN
TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES MORE
RESILIENT OUR GRID MORE
RESILIENT --
IN OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER --
FROM THE EAST FROM THE FIRES
THIS THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS
JUST ONE OF MANY.
OF THOSE HEARINGS THAT WILL HAVE
ONCE AGAIN I THANK YOU ALTERNATE
OVER TO MY CO CHAIR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOLDEN.
I I WOULD AGREE WITH.
MY COACH HERE BUT I ALSO WOULD
SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER BILLS
THAT ARE OUT --
IN BOTH HOUSES THAT I THINK ARE
IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA
LOSE SIGHT OF IT THINK SENATOR
JACKSON HAS --
ONE LAURA FRIEDMAN AND OTHERS SO
THERE ARE BILLS THAT ARE --
PART OF THE PROCESS AS WE WIND
DOWN THAT I THINK IS WE ARE ABLE
TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE HOLISTIC.
ISSUES AS THE SENATORS POINTED
OUT THAT ARE IN FRONT OF US.
THE ISSUE BEFORE US TODAY IS
JUST ONE PART OF THAT.
AND AND CLEARLY IT WAS AN
ELEMENT THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WHICH WE
UNDERSCORE HIS A PROPOSAL.
AND SO AS WE MAKE OUR WAY
THROUGH NEXT WEEK TERROR DRESS
RESILIENCY.
NEXT WEEK I THINK IT'S GOING TO
BE IMPORTANT TO SEE THAT ALL OF
THESE PIECES WILL COME TOGETHER.
AND WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DO.
DELIBERATE AND YOUR PUBLIC
COMMENT IS IS A PART OF THIS
PROCESS AND I APPRECIATE THE A
PERSON WHO.
MADE THE COMMENT THAT THEY
RECOGNIZE THAT THIS HAS BEEN A
TRANSPARENT PROCESS WE WANTED TO
BE IT HAS TO BE AND SO --
AND WE WE REALLY WANT TO
UNDERSCORE.
OUR EVEN THOSE OF US WHO DO NOT
REPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE
BURNED --
AND FAMILIES WHO HAVE BEEN
IMPACTED THOSE THAT ARE CAN.
ATTENUATING TO DEAL WITH.
THE THREAT.
OF WILDFIRES AS WE SPEAK BUT I
REPRESENTED COMMUNITY IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND SAYING
IT WILL VALID.
THAT.
IS VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TO BEING IN
THE SAME.
A SITUATION SO WE ARE ALL NO
MATTER WHERE WE REPRESENT IN THE
STATE --
HAVE CONSTITUENTS THAT.
ARE GOING TO POTENTIALLY BE
IMPACTED AT SOME POINT.
IN THE FUTURE SO WHAT WE'RE
DOING HERE TODAY IS TRYING TO
PROTECT.
ALL OF CALIFORNIANS AND SO WE
APPRECIATE THE THE PANEL HAVE
PURSUED THIS GROUP IN.
OUR WORK WHERE WE'RE MAKING OUR
WAY THROUGH YOU'RE PART OF THAT
AND SORT PROCEEDS TO BEING HERE.
AND WITH THAT WILL ADJOURN THIS
MEETING