Continued talks with PG&E

Nicole Yelich currently has the distinction of being the first point of contact for PG&E with regard to our Canary Island Palm tree predicament. We had a good talk today and I'm sure we'll be talking over the next several months. There are plenty of things we can agree on, but for now, I think there are two key points on which we disagree.

1. My argument is that the trees were there first, so PG&E messed up when it placed utility lines directly above these trees (and in some cases, directly next to the trees). Nicole suggested the trees came after the utility lines. She's going to provide documentation showing that the utility lines were constructed in 1929. This is considerably earlier than I would have guessed, but still over 20 years after the first trees were planted. We've posted a number of photos showing what the trees looked like in the early part of the last century. One of my favorites is this image showing the palm trees shortly after they were planted, sometime between 1906 and 1910. From my research, it appears these trees grow about 6 inches per year. It's because they grow so slowly that they can command such a premium for landscaping projects. Anyway, given that math, our trees are about 50 feet high, so that means 100 years, which just about matches this photo.
   
   
2. The second issue requires that we establish the trees existed before the high voltage lines were constructed. If in fact PG&E was negligent in the location of these poles, it should be their responsibility to relocate the poles. I asked Nicole what would it take for PG&E to pay for the relocation of these utility lines. Her response was PG&E cannot, because CPUC regulation forbids them from using ratepayer funds for such purposes. Erin Parks, the previous forester, had also stated this, so the rationale is certainly consistent. I just find it difficult to believe, given that PG&E is able to use the very same funds for the removal of trees. The funds are meant to be used to maintain the infrastructure. I've asked to see the exact rule or regulation, and Nicole offered to research this and send me a copy. If it turns out PG&E is right about this, I won't be happy, but at least we can have a common understanding.

There's also the matter of proposition 16, which for the most part, I've been keeping out of the discussion. But I think that may be an important philosophical point. If PG&E really doesn't want the electorate to get into the electric power business, then the company should maintain the infrastructure without destroying public property. If they can't, then it only encourages the public to want to take it over. Here's an excerpt of an email I wrote to a number of people at PG&E on Wednesday; it's what basically precipitated the discussion with Nicole Yelich:

I recognize that PG&E does not want to be in the business of removing trees and that the only reason the company is considering this course of action is because it is the least expensive way to fulfill its regulatory and public safety obligations. I trust that PG&E takes these obligations seriously, since as a public utility, it exists to serve the public good. However, removing healthy heritage trees that have been an unmistakable fixture in our community for over a century, trees as old as the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, harms the public good. Fortunately, PG&E can mitigate the fire and electrocution hazard posed in this situation without damage to public or private property by simply relocating the primary high voltage wires.

I understand that PG&E must comply with a number of CPUC rules and regulations for minimum vegetation clearance. PG&E failed in its duty to properly maintain its electric infrastructure when it placed utility poles in locations that violate its own clearance requirements, creating the problem we have today. This is a serious breach of the company's obligations. In order to comply with CPUC regulation, the company attempted to remove heritage trees; 100+ year old trees that would each cost $25,000 to replace. As an alternative to removing the trees, PG&E is asking the community to pay to relocate utility lines-- in effect, that is asking the residents of Vallemar to pay to remedy PG&E's past mistakes.

The residents of Vallemar should not be paying to maintain power lines. We do not want to be in the utility business, and given how hard PG&E is working on proposition 16, I assume that PG&E does not want Pacifica getting in the electric utility business either. I do hope that PG&E will recognize its responsibilities not only to shareholders, but also to the community in Pacifica, by either relocating utility poles or raising affected primary lines. I hope I am accurate in my interpretation, and we are in the process of connecting with Public Utilities Commission for further clarification. Perhaps the CPUC can offer an alternative that we have not considered.