The political pressure on Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Legislature and the California Public Utilities Commission to break up Pacific Gas & Electric has grown rapidly since PG&E ordered power outages from Oct. 9-12 that affected more than 2 million people in response to the fire threat posed by heavy winds.

The utility began another planned outage Wednesday that affected 178,000 homes and businesses — once again saying it had no choice because gusty winds could cause its infrastructure to spark fast-moving wildfires.

But the idea that one of the great wealth-producing regions in the world can’t keep the lights on infuriated many in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said his city was interested in buying all or part of PG&E and turning it into a municipal utility. “I’ve seen better-organized riots,” Liccardo said of PG&E’s preparations for the Oct. 9-12 outages.

San Francisco has sought parts of PG&E for months. On Oct. 9, Mayor London Breed offered PG&E $2.5 billion for its energy infrastructure serving her city. The utility rejected the offer.

Meanwhile, Newsom’s Oct. 14 call for PG&E to provide residential customers affected by the Oct. 9-12 outage a credit or rebate of $100 and small businesses $250 was rejected Tuesday by the utility. This was seen as an effort by the governor not just to get PG&E to pay for the mass inconvenience it had caused but to create an economic disincentive to the utility imposing outages even when fire risks were only moderate.

Will Newsom drop support for PG&E getting out of bankruptcy?

Newsom is in a difficult situation that could lead him to abandon his support for PG&E emerging from its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which was declared in January after the utility acknowledged it faced $30 billion or more in wildfire liabilities. The utility must do so by July 2020 to be eligible for a $26 billion wildfire relief fund the Legislature passed this summer to help utilities deal with the massive cost of fires. 

As recently as November 2018, support for PG&E among state lawmakers was significant enough that Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, told reporters he would carry a bill to protect the utility from wildfire liabilities. But such support is no longer evident in the Capitol. Newsom’s recent descriptions of PG&E as greedy, incompetent and untrustworthy resemble the longtime rhetoric of the utility’s harshest critics, such as state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo.

Pundits from several state newspapers and news websites have speculated that Newsom’s political future depends on how he handles the PG&E crisis. They noted that Gov. Gray Davis was so hurt by rolling blackouts in the winter of 2000-2001 that a Republican-led effort to replace him in 2003 rapidly caught fire and culminated with Arnold Schwarzenegger replacing Davis.

“I’ve seen this movie before,’’ Garry South, a Democratic strategist and a top aide to Gov. Davis, told Politico California.

But even if Newsom deftly handles the PG&E matter, he could still face blowback over what some experts expect to be a series of big increases in power bills from utilities overwhelmed by the cost of wildfires and of preparing for them in an era of hot, dry conditions. California’s rates are already 50 percent higher than the national average, according to data from August.

As South told Politico, Californians may not have had cause to blame Gov. Davis for the 2000-2001 blackouts. But when bad things happened that affected the basics of modern life, they blamed the person in charge, he said. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants the Legislature to agree to sweeping reforms in wildfire liability rules by July 12, before lawmakers start a one-month recess.

After first calling on legislative leaders to shape new policies to help investor-owned utilities deal with a hotter, drier, more fire-prone era in April, Newsom put forward his own plan last week. It’s most significant change is an end to the state’s unusual “inverse condemnation” law that requires utilities be held liable for damages if their equipment sparks wildfires whatever the circumstances. Like predecessor Jerry Brown, Newsom thinks a more reasonable rule is to allow utilities to escape liability if there is evidence that their equipment was properly maintained – a standard used in most other states.

Newsom says this rule and the establishment of a $21 billion fund to help cover the cost of future blazes – paid for equally by shareholders and ratepayers of Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – would go a long way toward stabilizing the state’s power grid and helping PG&E out of bankruptcy.

Thanks to a quirk, ratepayers might not even notice their share of the tab. That’s because a $2.50 monthly surcharge first imposed on utilities’ customers in 2002 to deal with heavy costs from the 2000-2001 energy crisis that is supposed to end next year would be renewed through 2035 to pay ratepayers’ share of the wildfire fund.

Brown’s call for weaker liability rules was rejected

But Brown got nowhere with his call last year to end “inverse condemnation.” And Newsom will face the same obstacles – and a new one. That’s the fact that many lawmakers may be ambivalent at best about helping PG&E come out of the bankruptcy process it initiated in January over at least $30 billion in claims from harsh wildfires in Northern California in recent years. 

The reputation of the state’s largest utility has been in a free-fall since a 2010 gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno that killed eight people and led to PG&E’s conviction of six federal felonies for shoddy maintenance and interfering with federal investigators. 

Yet after the utility promised it would do a far better job in inspecting and maintaining gas transmission lines, in December, the California Public Utilities Commission revealed that it had found that PG&E managers pressured workers to falsify “tens of thousands” gas safety inspections from 2012-2017.

The revelations stunned CPUC President Michael Picker – leading him to suggest for the first time that PG&E be taken over by the state, be broken up into smaller parts or otherwise go through a radical overhaul. 

The view that PG&E status quo must end has been highly popular among Bay Area politicians, who cite the fact that Sacramento started up its own municipal utility nearly a century ago in response to poor, costly service from PG&E.

In May, San Francisco Mayor London Breed said the city was preparing a formal, multibillion-dollar offer for some of PG&E’s key assets. Breed said her city had a “unique opportunity” to bolster its “long-term interest.”

Help PG&E with bankruptcy? Or break it up?

State lawmakers from the Bay Area include some of PG&E’s most forceful critics, starting with Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo. Even before the revelation in December about PG&E’s years of falsifying gas inspection records, Hill had already called for the utility to be taken over by a public agency or coalition of agencies.

Hill and other lawmakers are unlikely to accept changes in “inverse condemnation” until PG&E is overhauled. One of the main reasons previous calls to change the rule have been opposed was because of concerns that letting up pressure on PG&E to meet safety standards would lead the utility to be reactive instead of proactive in maintaining its equipment.

Against this backdrop, Newsom’s push to get his fire relief plan approved by July 12 doesn’t appear realistic.

That could wipe out half the $30 billion in liabilities that the state’s largest power utility feared it faces because of brutal wildfires linked to its power lines and transmission facilities over the past three years.

PG&E’s stock went up 75 percent after the Cal Fire report on Thursday before slipping 16 percent on Friday.

Former CPUC leader: Bankruptcy a ploy to win bailout

The ruling was cited in a Los Angeles Times analysis that questioned whether PG&E really needed to go into bankruptcy on Tuesday, as it had previously announced it would. Former California Public Utilities Commission President Loretta Lynch told the newspaper that the utility had “created this crisis” as part of a corporate strategy to scare the state Legislature into approving a sweeping bailout to minimize disruptions for its 16 million customers.

Yet Lynn’s view was at odds with several recent developments. Credit rating agencies only continued to see PG&E as in near-deathbed condition and last week, S&P Global Ratings downgraded the state’s other two investor-owned utilities – Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

S&P said PG&E’s travails showed the risks that California utilities face because of “inverse condemnation” – a state law which says utilities are financially liable for damages from fires caused by their equipment even if the utilities had not been found negligent.

Meanwhile, PG&E’s contentious relationship with the federal judge overseeing its probation stemming from its six felony convictions in the 2010 natural gas pipeline disaster that killed eight people in San Bruno (pictured) took a sharp turn for the worse. There is relatively little precedent for federal judges to play such oversight roles in complex cases. This had led to speculation that San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup might be cautious in drawing conclusions after announcing in late November that he was reviewing PG&E’s role in recent wildfires in Northern California. Alsup was seen as lacking the background and experience of agencies like the CPUC and Cal Fire to evaluate the utility’s claims and evidence from wildfire sites.

Instead, the judge has already issued a preliminary ruling directly asserting that PG&E’s failure to properly insulate power conductors contributed to fire disasters in Northern California over the last two years, including the November blaze in Butte County that killed at least 85 people. A hearing is scheduled in Alsup’s courtroom Wednesday on his ruling, which could lead to the judge ordering PG&E to broadly upgrade its transmission equipment.

PG&E: Rates could go up five-fold

The San Francisco Chronicle reported last week that PG&E officials believed that compliance with a far-reaching Alsup order “could cost between $75 billion and $150 billion, requiring a one-year rate hike – at the low end of the spectrum – of more than five times current rates in typical bills.”

In its formal response to Alsup’s tentative ruling, PG&E indirectly questioned his expertise. The utility wrote that it is “committed to working aggressively and expeditiously with state and federal officials on system maintenance and upgrades and on wildfire mitigation efforts.”

“But the path forward to mitigating wildfire risk is best designed not through probation conditions, but rather through careful coordination with state and federal regulators, after appropriate consultation with other interested parties, based on the best science and engineering advice, with policy analysis that accounts for the full range of important but often conflicting social goals,” PG&E concluded.

State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, told the Bay Area News Group that he welcomed Alsup’s actions.

“A federal judge is actually saying things and hopefully will do something about the lack of maintenance at PG&E,” he said. “No one else has required that.”

Hill, whose district includes San Bruno, has long ripped the state Public Utilities Commission for what he sees as lax oversight of PG&E.

How much of wildfire costs not covered by insurance should be paid by California’s giant investor-owner utilities has been a significant issue since at least 2007. That’s when wildfires ravaged northern and eastern San Diego County, killing two people and destroying more than 1,300 homes.

San Diego Gas & Electric argued that it should be allowed to pass on $379 million in related costs. But the California Public Utilities Commission and state courts – noting the evidence that poorly maintained equipment had been blamed for much of the damage in two state investigations – have rebuffed SDG&E. The utility’s most recent setback came just last week when the state 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego rejected a call to overturn previous rulings.

But during SDG&E’s long fight for a utility-favorable interpretation of liability laws, the debate has become far more high-profile. With six of California’s all-time 10 worst wildfires occurring since September 2015 in areas served by Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, the question of what to do to keep the state’s two largest investor-owned utilities in business has emerged as one of the thorniest, most contentious issues in Sacramento.

Now, with Northern California reeling from its deadliest fire ever in Butte County, and with a large area of Ventura County and northwest Los Angeles County ravaged in the past two weeks, PG&E and Edison are confronted with a perverse twist on their successful efforts to get the Legislature to give them relief from huge wildfire costs.

Law protecting utilities doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1

Senate Bill 901 – the main measure passed in late summer to insulate utilities from the extreme costs of fires – doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1. That means its provisions to limit utilities’ liabilities if it could be shown they properly maintained their equipment in fire-prone wilderness areas won’t help PG&E or Edison with this fall’s blazes.

Instead, the old standard that led to negative rulings against SDG&E will be used in assessing damages. Given that utilities’ equipment is blamed for helping start the latest round of wildfires, that could be apocalyptic for the finances of PG&E. As of Monday afternoon, the Camp Fire had killed 77, with nearly 1,000 people unaccounted for, and torched 151,000 acres and nearly 13,000 structures.

In the Woolsey fire northeast of Los Angeles, three people have died, while more than 96,000 acres and 1,400-plus structures have burned.

In coming days, the focus is likely to be on how many of the missing in the Camp Fire are dead. It could end up as one of the five deadliest natural disasters in the United States in this century – nearly as lethal as Hurricane Katrina.

But eventually the focus will return to whether PG&E can survive the latest conflagrations even as it deals with potential losses in the billions from previous fires – and how much more state lawmakers and Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom should do to help the utility survive in its present condition.

Its company valuation plunged by more than one-third after the severity of the Camp fire became evident, only to jump somewhat late last week after the president of the state Public Utilities Commission offered supportive comments.

“It’s not good policy to have utilities unable to finance the services and infrastructure the state of California needs,” Michael Picker told Bloomberg News. “They have to have stability and economic support to get the dollars they need right now.”

PG&E has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy before, in April 2001, when the utility was squeezed by sky-high energy costs after the blackouts of winter 2000-2001. It emerged from bankruptcy three years later.

Lawmakers have little goodwill for ‘criminal’ PG&E

But a huge scandal since then has left Northern California lawmakers with less goodwill toward the 113-year-old utility, whatever Picker’s views and whatever their willingness to pass SB901.

In 2010, a PG&E transmission line exploded in the San Francisco suburb of San Bruno, leaving eight dead and destroying 38 homes. In 2017, a federal judge found the utility guilty of five felonies for its failings to safely maintain the gas line, and a sixth felony for obstructing the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into the disaster.

Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, routinely refers to PG&E as a “criminal” institution. Last week, he renewed his call to break up the utility, saying it could no longer be trusted to act in the interest of public safety.

PG&E shares closed at $23.26 in Monday trading. That was down 58 percent from its 52-week high of $55.66.

California’s three giant investor-owned utilities haven’t given up on hopes that state leaders and regulators may give their shareholders the financial protection they want in an era of frequent massive wildfires linked to climate change – and their hopes don’t seem as dim as they used to be.

In late November, the California Public Utilities Commission issued what syndicated columnist Thomas Elias called “perhaps its most consumer-friendly decision in several decades.” Affirming staff recommendations made in August, the CPUC board unanimously rejected a bid by San Diego Gas & Electric to pass along $379 million in unrecovered costs stemming from three blazes in 2007 that ravaged San Diego’s northeast suburbs, the city of Poway and unincorporated county areas, torching over 1,300 homes. The CPUC board noted that two independent investigations had concluded the fires were SDG&E’s fault because of poor maintenance practices in high-risk fire areas, and that utility shareholders – not ratepayers – should pay the bill.

But as the bureaucratic decision-making process played out in the San Diego case, the CPUC’s decision in the matter came to have immense importance to Pacific Gas & Electric because of what happened in its own back yard – the brutal October 2017 Wine Country wildfires (pictured). The cost of those Northern California blazes – about $10 billion – dwarfs the cost of San Diego County’s 2007 fires. PG&E’s liability exposure is also expected to be much higher than SDG&E’s – likely in the billions of dollars, according to reports that have regularly blamed PG&E wildfire management practices for the conflagrations, which left more than 40 dead.

PG&E, SDG&E and Southern California Edison officials see the CPUC ruling as a potential existential threat in a hotter, drier era and weren’t ready to let it stand as the final word. This led to what seemed like a long-shot January appeal by the three utilities seeking a new CPUC hearing for SDG&E’s bid for $379 million in relief.

It may not be as long a shot any longer. Gov. Jerry Brown issued a pronouncement March 13 mostly devoted to new efforts to minimize wildfire risk. But its passing reference to the governor’s interest in new legislation that would “update liability rules and regulations for utility services in light of changing climate” conditions caught the eye of Wall Street, at least.

PG&E stock price jumps on report from governor’s office

Barron’s gave PG&E its “hot stock” appellation after the utility’s stock price jumped 6.3 percent on March 13, to $45.10. As of the end of trading Friday, the price was down to $43.08. But that was still up more than 20 percent from its mid-February low.

Ultimately, the question of whether the utilities will get help from the California Legislature and the CPUC seems certain to become a huge political football. The governor has long been seen as close to the three utilities, vetoing reform bills related to recent scandals that have easily passed the Assembly and Senate in recent years.

But Brown is termed out and in his final eight-plus months on the job. With California Democratic politics seeming to have entered an intensely populist phase, leading candidates to replace Brown such as Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa may hesitate to back rule changes that can be depicted as insulating the utilities from the costs of their poor practices in addressing wildfire risks.

Several state legislators are determined to head off any lessening of utilities’ liabilities for their mistakes. In January, Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and seven co-sponsors in the Senate and Assembly introduced Senate Bill 819. Hill called it an “outrage” that state utilities wanted to make their customers pay for damages that “result from negligent practices.”

An April 17 hearing has been scheduled for the legislation.

Amid a patchwork landscape of laws and enforcement, California legislators eyed a new bill that would ban getting high behind the wheel.

Joined by Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, introduced Senate Bill 65 to address an obvious gray area left untouched by Proposition 64, the marijuana-legalizing initiative passed by voters last November. 

“It’s currently illegal to have an ‘open container’ of weed in a vehicle. It’s also illegal to drive while high. But there’s a technical loophole in these existing laws, because they don’t specify cannabis usage while driving,” the San Jose Mercury News explained. “Nor do they define whether a pipe, joint or edible are considered ‘open containers.’ That’s akin to saying you can’t have an open can of Bud in the car, and you certainly can’t be drunk, but it’s OK to take sips while behind the wheel.”

Questions of overreach

Already, however, critics and analysts have raised pointed questions about how the putative law would be enforced. Instead of merely prohibiting THC use on the road, “Senate Bill 65 would also encompass a ban on CBD consumption while driving, an ingredient in marijuana that does not contain THC (the chemical that gets users high),” as the San Francisco Examiner noted. “CBD is often used by those suffering from chronic pain or cancer to alleviate suffering and anxiety.”

“Another complication of Senate Bill 65 is the potential testing of how high a driver is. If a driver is caught driving erratically after smoking weed, any testing that would take place would not offer as clear results as an alcohol breathalyzer. THC does not show up immediately in the blood stream after consumption, and it can stay in the body’s system for up to a week after smoking, making a quick assessment of one’s recent drug intake complicated. In addition, no threshold has been established on the amount of THC one can have in their system while driving.”

Some Californians have already faced rude awakenings at the borders of California’s laws, some of which haven’t budged. National Park Service rangers, for instance, have continued “to bust people caught with marijuana in Yosemite, Redwood, Death Valley and other federal lands across the state,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “The federal government says it’s not backing off on citing people who are caught with marijuana in California’s national parks, monuments, recreational areas and other federal lands regardless of the landslide vote that legalized recreational marijuana in the state.”

Enforcement pushback

But ambiguity in the law may still allow for people to light up while driving, and two state lawmakers are looking to close that loophole.

Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and Evan Low, D-Campbell, introduced legislation that would prohibit smoking or ingesting marijuana while driving, making it either an infraction or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances. 

As with alcohol, driving under the influence of marijuana is already illegal. But unlike alcohol, there’s no threshold for legal impairment and no adequate roadside test. Determining a driver’s impairment is left to the judgement of law enforcement.

“This legislation makes our laws for smoking while driving consistent with drinking while driving,” Hill said in a statement. “With New Year’s Eve approaching, it’s important to remind Californians that impaired driving can be deadly.”

Who will Gov. Jerry Brown believe: the Mothers Against Drunk Driving or his own Department of Motor Vehicles?

That’s what it boils down to when Brown decides whether to sign Senate Bill 1046, a bill by Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, that’s touted as a crucial tool in keeping drunken drivers off California’s roads and highways.

The measure would require drivers convicted of DUI to purchase and install “ignition interlock” devices in their vehicles. The devices include a breathalyzer. If an unacceptable level of alcohol is detected on a driver’s breath, his or her vehicle’s engine is disabled. First-time offenders would have to install the devices for six months, with longer mandates for subsequent DUI convictions.

Hill and MADD say similar laws in 28 other states have a long track record of deterring drunken driving and reducing recidivism. While lawmakers balked in previous sessions at such a measure, this time opposition evaporated. The bill passed the Assembly 79-0  and the Senate 39-0.

The unanimous votes came despite DMV concerns. In a June report, agency officials said a test program in four counties — Los Angeles, Sacramento, Alameda and Tulare — with about a third of the state’s population arguably deterred new DUI cases but led to a significant increase in accidents among drivers whose vehicles were equipped with ignition interlocks. The increase was determined by comparing the accident rates among drivers with the devices and drivers with suspended licenses who drove illegally.

Bill would end automatic license suspension for DUI

Hill blasted the report to a home-district newspaper as being based on shoddy statistical analysis. But the DMV questioned Hill’s reasoning in turn, saying it was not clear that his bill — which ends automatic suspensions of driving rights for some first-time DUI offenders — was the best way to deal with the issue. The agency asserted that such automatic suspensions, which began in 1990, correlated strongly with a long-term drop in DUI recidivism.

A smarter approach, the DMV said, was to “convene a task force including representatives from the Legislature, judiciary, law enforcement, and other public agencies to develop recommendations for strengthening components of California’s comprehensive DUI countermeasure system.”

The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice also opposed Hill’s bill, saying it would take away discretion in sentencing from judges.

Frank Harris, MADD’s director of government affairs, said critics shouldn’t block a change that he depicted as certain to save lives. “Interlocks are much more effective than just hoping for the best with license suspensions,” Harris told the San Mateo Daily Journal. “MADD welcomes further studies, but that shouldn’t be a reason to hold up a life-changing bill and put forth a better policy for society.”

If Brown signs SB1046, it will take effect in 2019 and expire in 2026.

Now there’s one more story that places the PUC in very unflattering light. KQED has details:

In 2011, Steven and Sharon Vego, along with their 21-year-old son, Jonathan Cole, were killed after a power line went down in their backyard in San Bernardino. …

 

[The Vegos] left behind two kids — one of whom watched from inside the family house as her father, then mother and brother, all died in January 2011.

 

Within a few months, the surviving children filed a lawsuit and asked the CPUC for its investigation report. The CPUC voted in May 2011 to allow the release of that report. It was issued Dec. 17, 2012, and found that the incident was not only Southern California Edison’s fault, but that it could have been prevented if the utility had responded to previous issues on the same electricity circuit.

 

But public records released by the CPUC show the agency didn’t give the report to the Vego family until March 19, 2014 — more than two years after the family settled its lawsuit with Southern California Edison. And the CPUC waited until five days after it had entered into a settlement agreement in which Southern California Edison admitted that it violated state regulations, that there had been similar incidents previously and agreed to a $16.5 million fine.

PUC sides with utility over ‘grieving family’

In a Feb. 16 letter to CPUC President Michael Picker, Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, decried how the “commission — which was the only public entity to perform an investigation — effectively took the side of the utility against the grieving family in a civil matter.”

“You know everyone seems to characterize the relationship between the PUC and the utilities as cozy. Well, I think some of this, what we are finding out, shows not just a coziness but a collusion, and that’s the part that I think is most troubling. Collusion gets into what I look at as corruption, what I look at as something that could be dishonest,” Hill told KQED.

The former San Mateo mayor says this is not the only recent example of Edison dealing unfairly with victims of its defective maintenance. He cited the case of Brandon Orozco, an apprentice working for an Edison contractor who was shocked to death at an underground Edison facility in Huntington Harbour in 2013.

Hill said the Public Utilities Commission, especially given that it had formally concluded Edison was responsible for Orozco’s death, should have taken on the utility when it refused to release its internal investigation into the accident. The utility cited attorney-client privilege — even though state law “clearly states that the commission, and each commissioner, and anyone employed by the commission, can at any time inspect the account, book or documents of any public utility,” Hill told KQED.

The tiff began when the CPUC “hired outside lawyers as federal and state investigators probed allegations of official influence-peddling and improper deal-making with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and other utilities,” as the San Francisco Chronicle reported. As NBC Bay Area reported, the tab for those attorneys reached $5 million.

That led legislators in Sacramento to cut $5 million from the CPUC’s annual budget in retaliation. “If the commissioners are doing something wrong, they should pony up and say this is what we’re doing wrong and take the brunt of it,” said state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, according to NBC.

Picking a fight

“Lawmakers didn’t specify where the commission had to make budget cuts, however,” the Chronicle added. So the agency — in what seemed to be a calculated effort to make lawmakers look bad — “took the money in part from efforts to implement antiterrorist legislation.” Not by coincidence, CPUC Executive Director Timothy Sullivan chose to postpone implementation of Senate Bill 699, authored by Hill himself. Signed into law last year, the bill “ordered the state’s power providers to draw up security plans to harden the electrical grid against saboteurs,” according to the Chronicle.

Hill’s legislation was no bit of precautionary housekeeping. “The law was passed in response to the sabotage of the PG&E Metcalf substation in April 2013, the day after the Boston Marathon attacks,” as AllGov recalled. In that incident, one or two assailants — officials never determined which — “entered two manholes at the power station just southeast of San Jose and severed fiber optic cables. 911 service was cut to the area and AT&T cellphone service was disrupted. Someone then shot up the place with a high-powered rifle, pumping more than 100 rounds into several transformers. Cooling oil leaked out and the overheated transformers shut down. No one was injured and the disruption of electrical power was minimal. But power had to be rerouted.”

National fears

Although the attack was never formally connected to a terrorist organization, the precision and efficacy of the strike put state and federal officials back sharply on their heels. “Shooting for 19 minutes,” the attackers “surgically knocked out 17 giant transformers that funnel power to Silicon Valley. A minute before a police car arrived, the shooters disappeared into the night,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Utility executives and federal energy officials have long worried that the electric grid is vulnerable to sabotage. That is in part because the grid, which is really three systems serving different areas of the U.S., has failed when small problems such as trees hitting transmission lines created cascading blackouts. One in 2003 knocked out power to 50 million people in the Eastern U.S. and Canada for days.”

In a December 2013 regulatory hearing of the Energy and Commerce Committee, then-ranking member Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., tried to raise the alarm. “It is clear that the electric grid is not adequately protected from physical or cyber attacks,” Waxman said, Foreign Policy reported. “He called the shooting at the the San Jose facility ‘an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with  military-style weapons. Communications were disrupted. The attack inflicted substantial damage. It took weeks to replace the damaged parts. Under slightly different conditions, there could have been serious power outages or worse.'”

Abuse of power

Given the revelations surrounding the CPUC’s once-secret conduct, its willingness to dawdle on improving grid security seemed likely to backfire. “The lawmakers’ action, while ostensibly tailored to the outside legal bills incurred by the CPUC, was meant as a general rebuke to the commission’s cozy relationships with the utilities it regulates,” AllGov noted. “Critics have long complained about the public’s business being done behind closed doors, but the release of emails last year during a federal court proceeding exposed unethical behavior that could very well prove to be illegal.”