When the power went out at 4:30 a.m. Wednesday northeast of Santa Rosa, part of a planned shut-off by PG&E to stave off the threat of wildfire, George Jackson wandered outside of his Franz Valley house and noticed something strange.
“There was no wind,” Jackson said.
But the hot and dry conditions early this past week across Northern California raised enough alarm with fire, weather and utility authorities that PG&E, the region’s dominant power supplier, scrambled to warn residents of the likelihood that their electricity would be shut off.
The first such warning came the evening of Sept. 21, a Friday, and by Tuesday, potential shutdowns were predicted to impact as many as 34,000 PG&E customers across a region scarred in the past two years by massive, deadly wildfires, the majority of them linked by state investigators to the utility’s power equipment.
Cutting off electricity has become an increasingly significant and controversial part of the bankrupt utility’s bid to reduce its risk of causing another calamity and limit its own soaring liabilities, estimated at more than $30 billion for the 2017 and 2018 fires.
But Jackson was sure he heard that the forecast for winds was set to factor into any shut-off decision, with an eye out for the kind of winds – measured at up to 68 mph – that helped supercharge the Tubbs fire as it screamed downhill into Santa Rosa two years ago from Napa County.
The lack of wind – top gusts reached 16 mph on Wednesday amid the North Bay shut-off – coupled with the relative whiplash of warnings that left residents and local emergency officials in suspense for days, sowed confusion and anger among residents and the local officials charged with public safety here.
“I’m very frustrated at how much staff hours and money we spent to run around and chase PG&E’s potential forecasting,” said Sonoma County Supervisor James Gore, whose north county district was affected by the Wednesday shutdown. “I’ve never seen so much money used in our county to chase a weather forecast.”
Windy weather conditions
In fact, winds of at least 25 mph are among the criteria used by PG&E officials to determine whether to shut down power.
At 4:30 a.m. Wednesday, when power was turned off to roughly 1,400 customers in Sonoma and Napa counties, Jackson was right, there was no wind, according to the National Weather Service. Winds peaked later that day with 16 mph gusts at about 2 p.m. By that time, however, efforts were underway to restore power. By 11:30 p.m. Wednesday, more than 90% of customers had electricity restored, with Sonoma County customers restored by 4 p.m. In all, 48,200 customers were impacted in the Sierra Nevada foothills and the North Bay.
PG&E spokeswoman Deanna Contreras said wind is just one of a variety of factors the utility weighs when deciding to pull the plug. She also promised better communication in future shutdown situations.
Sonoma County Emergency Manager Chris Godley didn’t second-guess the shutdown, saying PG&E is responsible for determining whether the weather poses a threat to its infrastructure or risks starting a wildfire. He said he has seen forecasts swing the other way, ushering in more dangerous conditions – something he said makes him err on the side of caution.
“That’s absolutely our job in public safety,” Godley said. “We cannot forecast the future, especially the weather. We have to make sure we’re built for, essentially, the worst-case scenario every time.”
Gore, likewise, didn’t begrudge the shutdown, saying he was more concerned about what he called communications failures that he blamed on PG&E. Gore said it’s been a problem for months, and he said updates from the utility were vague in the 60 hours before power was finally cut.
PG&E promised to make a decision at numerous points, backing off each time and putting off the decision until later.
“We took our biggest black eye about the fires with our alert warning system,” Gore said, referencing the county’s failures to issue more widespread warnings through its emergency alert system amid the deadly October 2017 fires. “We turned that on its head by doing more testing than anybody. I want to see the same level of commitment … that same level of urgency and transparency (from PG&E).”
Contreras, the PG&E spokeswoman, said the company was aware of communications problems and said via email that PG&E is committed to improving its coordination with local authorities during public safety power shutdowns. Contreras said a series of meetings are planned with emergency management officials in Sonoma, Butte, Nevada, Yuba, Placer and Plumas counties.
Expanded shut-off plan
PG&E launched the power shutdowns in 2018 and expanded them this year to potentially span 31,000 miles of power lines in high fire-threat areas and impact all 5.4 million customers in Northern and Central California. To date, the company has initiated four shut-offs, with Wednesday’s being the first to impact Sonoma County customers.
The decision to shut down electricity infrastructure is based on a variety of factors. The company’s San Francisco nerve center, where a team of meteorologists and analysts pore over weather data, is the hub of that decision-making process. Under the advisement of this group, which has both fire and electrical infrastructure expertise, a company executive who is the day’s in-charge officer – usually a president or senior vice president – decides whether to cut power in a certain area.
If the company had gone forward with its initially planned shut-off last week, which Sonoma County said could result in 139,000 residents losing power, it would have represented the largest purposeful de-energization in state history, Godley said during the Tuesday meeting of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
Michael Wara, a Stanford University scholar who served on the state’s Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery, said he considers shut-offs “a necessary strategy until we understand the risks and also how to reduce them much better than we do now.”
Wara said he is not aware of a utility-caused fire during a shut-off, nor of a wildfire erupting for other reasons in an area with de-energized power lines, but said the latter is “definitely a possibility.”
Wara said no one has been reported seriously hurt or killed because of a shut-off, but the power companies “are very concerned about this possibility.”
Alternatives to power cuts
Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director of the Oregon-based nonprofit Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology, said shut-offs are not a long-term solution because sending electricity in wires through miles of woodlands remains “a recipe for disaster.”
Burying power lines and decentralizing energy systems with rooftop solar installations would permanently reduce the risk, Ingalsbee said, acknowledging that both are extremely expensive.
For Sonoma County Supervisor Susan Gorin, who on Tuesday criticized PG&E for limited local investment in underground power lines and other grid upgrades, last week’s shortcomings launched a quest for answers.
“Where did this forecast come from?” Gorin said. “What indication did they have that this would be a heavy wind event?”
Contreras would not provide information about the company’s forecast for wind, saying more detailed information would be made public in PG&E’s report to the state Public Utilities Commission, due within 10 days of a power shut-off.
Sonoma County officials are already ready to file their after-action report, such as it is. Gore, Godley and Gorin, whose district was also impacted Wednesday, proclaimed the county’s response a success. The event affected about 700 customers, allowing the county to refine its processes during a smaller event.
There were no unusual calls for fire service, Godley said. Gore didn’t hear of any major problems, either.
It was a trial run, too, for Jackson, who bought two generators and even tested them recently. That didn’t keep one from failing when he plugged in his refrigerator.
“Luckily, I’ve got a backup-backup generator I bought,” he said.
