On Friday, RCRC, the Counties of Napa and Sonoma, and the City of Santa Rosa (the Local Governments) submitted a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) offering feedback on PG&E’s new Wildfire Tree Hauling Program, as described in a September 7 filing to the CPUC.  

PG&E regularly conducts post-fire vegetation management throughout the state in which it removes trees damaged or killed by recent wildfires that pose a risk of coming into contact with utility equipment and causing a wildfire.  These post-fire operations are separate and distinct from PG&E’s traditional vegetation management operations.  Historically, PG&E hauled away those trees and limbs cut down post-fire at no cost to the landowner; however, after the 2020 wildfires PG&E did not offer to remove the 150,000-200,000 trees it cut down and instead shifted those costs for transportation and disposal to the landowner.  

Local governments spent several months urging PG&E to reverse course and remove the cut trees, as they often pose serious safety and wildfire risks when left on site.  On August 17, Senators Bill Dodd and Mike McGuire and Assembly Members Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and Jim Wood sent a letter to the CPUC urging prompt action directing PG&E to “permanently reinstate its practice of removing and disposing of all trees it fells during post-fire system restoration work, inclusive of the trees it cut down following the 2020 wildfires.”  One week later, the CPUC directed PG&E to establish a program to remove trees felled during the 2020 post-fire operations and during the 2021 wildfire season.

On September 7th, PG&E filed its response to the CPUC outlining its 2020 Wildfire Tree Hauling Program.  While commendable in many respects, the Local Governments are concerned with several aspects of the program as it is described and has been rolled out.  In particular, the Local Governments’ letter to the CPUC highlights:

  • Problems with information accessibility
  • Inadequate metrics for determining the scope and effectiveness of outreach efforts
  • Narrow program eligibility

Additionally, the Local Governments expressed concerns that:

  • Fire risk may increase in some cases because of the manner of tree removal and disposal 
  • “Fine print” of the Landowner Permission Form may chill landowner participation and relieve PG&E of its obligation to remove hard-to-get trees
  • Plans for trees removed during the 2021 fire season are made contingent upon the availability of future resources.

RCRC and the other signatories value PG&E's improved attitude toward remediating the fire and safety risks it creates during post-fire system restoration work.  We also look forward to working more closely and collaboratively with PG&E on this issue and program refinements.  

For more information, contact John Kennedy, RCRC Legislative Advocate