P U B LI C

U T ILI T IES COMM ISS IO N

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5 0 5 VAN N ESS A VENUE
SAN F RANCISCO . CALIFORNIA 94102

M ICHAEL P ICKER
COMMISSIONER

T EL : 44 1 5 ) 703 - 2444
F AX : 4415 ) 703- 1 903

March 11,2016
The Honorable Jerry Hill
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: 2011 San Bernardino Triple Electrocution Public Records Act Inquiry
Dear Senator Hill,
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the release of the 20 II San Bernardino triple electrocution
investigation report.
In response to your letter, I asked our Legal Division to provide a comprehensive explanation for why the
release of the investigation report was delayed; their response is attached to this letter. Attachments include
(I) background information on the investigation, (2) answers to key questions regarding the investigation,
and (3) a timeline of events surrounding both the electrocution and response to it.
I share your frustration with the delay in releasing this report. As such, I have instructed our Safety and
Enforcement Division to develop a new procedure for release of future investigation reports. I am attaching
that new procedure to this letter, as well.
I hope that this information and corrective action is responsive to your concerns. As the legislative session
progresses, I look forward to working with you and your staff on SB 1049, SB 1017, and any other
legislation that would enable the CPUC to more easily and expeditiously disclose documents.
If you have anything more that you wish to bring to my attention or discuss further, please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Michael Picker, President, California Public Utilities Commission

cc:

Michel P. Florio, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission

Catherine J.K. Sandoval, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission
Carla J. Peterman, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission
Liane M. Randolph, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission
Timothy J. Sullivan, Executive Director, California Public Utilities Commission
Arocles Aguilar, General Counsel, California Public Utilities Commission
Elizaveta Malashenko, Director of Safety and Enforcement, California Public Utilities Commission
Hazel Miranda, Director of Governmental Affairs, California Public Utilities Commission

BACKGROUND REGARDING SEDS INVESTIGATION OF THE 2011 SAN BERNARDINO ELECTROCUTION

INCIDENT
In January 2011, three members of the Vego family were killed when they were electrocuted in their
backyard by downed Southern California Edison (SCE) power-lines. Following this incident, the
Commissions Safety & Enforcement Division (SED) initiated an investigation. The Commission also
received a Public Records Act (PRA) request from an attorney for the victims family. SED informed the
requester that it could not provide the investigative report at that time as SEDs investigation was
ongoing. It is SEDs practice to keep all documents associated with an ongoing investigation confidential
so as not to hinder or compromise an investigation.
Additionally, shortly after the incident, the victims family initiated two lawsuits against SCE in Superior
Court. One suit involved the surviving children of the Vego family and the second involved the biological
father of the minor victim. The first suit was dismissed in March 2012 after being settled. In the second
suit, a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case was filed in early November 2012. At this point, SED had
not provided the investigative report to either the family or SCE as the investigation was still open and
ongoing. SED was aware that the victims family settled their suits when SED later began negotiating its
own settlement with SCE.
SED completed its investigative report after the victims family settled their cases. SCE marked certain
information that SED relied on in the report as confidential under Code Section 583. SED reached a
settlement agreement with SCE in February of 2014. As part of the settlement agreement, SED required
SCE to waive confidentiality of all information in the investigative report, which made the entire report a
public document.
Shortly thereafter, the Commission opened an Order Instituting Investigation (OII) and the investigative
report was attached to this Order, making it available to the public. Additionally, the Commission sent
the investigative report to the PRA requester. SEDs settlement with SCE was submitted for the
Commissions approval in this proceeding, and was approved by the Commission in Decision 14-08-009.

Q1: Why didnt SED provide the investigative report in response to the PRA request at the
same time it provided the investigative report to SCE?
A1: The investigative report contained confidential information that SED was prohibited from
providing to the public under Public Utilities Code Section 583, except by order of the Commission or by
the Commission or a Commissioner in the course of a hearing or a proceeding. This was remedied
through the Commission issuing the OII, which reflected the settlement wherein SCE was required to
waive confidentiality, so that the Commission made the entire report public.
Since that time, SED consulted with Legal Division and developed a new standard procedure to handle
(1) the redaction of information in incident investigation reports that the utilities have marked as
confidential and (2) the subsequent public release of incident investigation reports. We have described
this new procedure in an attachment included herein, and we hope that it addresses the Senators
concerns set forth in his questions four and five.
Q2: Why did SED initiate settlement negotiations with SCE before opening an OII? Did this
prejudice the victims family?
A2: General practice at the CPUC is that an OII be opened prior to the beginning of any
settlement negotiations. In this proceeding, SEDs former director Jack Hagan opted to begin settlement
negotiations prior to opening an OII. While a divergence from general practice, this did not prejudice
the victims family as their claims against SCE had already been settled in civil court approximately two
years earlier.
Q3: Why did SED not provide the investigative report in response to the PRA request when
the report was completed in December, 2012? Did this prejudice the victims family?
A3: The report contained confidential information that could not have been provided per Public
Utilities Code Section 583. Although this particular report was completed in December of 2012, SEDs
investigation was still ongoing. For instance, SED also completed an additional report in 2013
specifically on windstorms that occurred around the same time as the electrocution incident. This did
not prejudice the victims family as the victims family had already settled their cases against SCE.
With regard to the Senators third question, it is standard procedure for the Legal Divisions Public
Records Act team and SED staff to discuss the status of an investigation and SEDs investigation report,
including any information in that investigation report that the utilities have marked as confidential
pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 583. We have not conducted a search for any such written
communications regarding the investigation report at issue here, although they would be subject to
various privileges.

SUMMARY AND TIMELINE OF PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST # 452

REGARDING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) AND THE SAN
BERNADINO ELECTROCUTION INVESTIGATION
January 14, 2011 Triple fatality electrocution occurs in San Bernardino, California.
March 25, 2011 PRA request received from Martin A. Cervantes, attorney for the
victims family. PRA request sought investigation records concerning the January 14,
2011 incident. Requester spoke to Raymond Fugere, SED Supervisor, who advised the
requester that SED will provide the investigative report as soon as it is completed.
March 28, 2011 Janet Alviar in Legal Division emailed Raymond Fugere to ask that he
notify her once Investigative Report is available.
April 2011 Janet Alviar continually follows up with Raymond Fugere, who responded
that the investigation would take up to five months.
April 25, 2011 Resolution approving release of investigative report upon completion
prepared and sent out for Commission approval by Legal Division.
May 26, 2011 Resolution L-413 adopted, which determined that:
1. The Commissions investigation of the incident is still open; therefore, the
disclosure of the Commissions investigation records would compromise the
Commissions investigation.
2. The request for disclosure of the Commission records concerning its
investigation is authorized once the investigation is complete, at which time
the Commission staff will release the requested records.
August 25, 2011 Janet Alviar seeks update from Raymond Fugere on status of
Investigate Report. He responds that investigation has not been completed and states that
it may be completed by the end of the year.
March 19, 2012 Minor childrens civil court case against SCE settles.
November 18, 2012 Father of adult victims civil court case against SCE settles.
December 17, 2012 Date of SEDs Preliminary Incident Investigation Report.
Report found that:
1. SCE was in violation of multiple provisions of General Order 95 for failing to
maintain appropriate clearance between overhead conductors;
1

2. SCE failed to take the necessary steps to prevent the recurrence of conductors
contacting each other;
3. SCE failed to design, construct, and maintain its overhead conductors to prevent
them from contacting each other;
4. SCE violated Public Utilities Code 451 for failing to take corrective actions to
remedy Safety Hazards and failing to maintain a safe system; and
5. SCE violated of General Order 95 for having damaged high voltage signs on two
poles.
Certain information used in investigative report marked as confidential by SCE under
Pub. Util. Code 583.
January 11, 2013 SED issues Investigation of Southern California Edison Companys
Outages of November 30 and December 1, 2011 regarding windstorms that occurred
around the same time as the electrocution incident. Report found that SCE and other
joint pole owners violated General Order 95 safety factor requirements.
February 27, 2013 SED Director Jack Hagan requests that a proposed OII be taken off
the Commissions agenda. He indicates that he wishes to settle the matter himself.
January 17, 2014 The San Bernardino Incident settlement process started in January
2014. SED was aware when it began settlement negotiations that victims family had
already settled.
January 22, 2014 Jack Hagan announces retirement.
January 22, 2014 Per Jack Hagans request, investigative report is provided to SCE via
email. Investigative report is marked confidential per CPUC Settlement Rule 12.6.
February 2014 A settlement was reached between SED and SCE in this matter.
March 13, 2014 The Commission votes to open the Order Instituting Investigation into
the Operations and Practices of Southern California Edison Company Regarding the
Acacia Avenue Triple Electrocution Incident in San Bernardino County and the
Windstorm of 2011 (Proceeding 1.14-03-004) (OII). The OII includes the Investigative
Report as an attachment.
March 19, 2014 In the OII proceeding, SED and Southern California Edison submitted
Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement. Among other settlement provisions,
SCE agreed to waive 583 confidentiality of the information in investigative report.
March 21, 2014 Raymond Fugere sends the responsive records to Janet Alviar for
review. Raymond Fugeres email transmitting records states that the delay in issuing
2

report was because SED did not want the report public until the Commission issued an
OII.
March 24, 2014 Responsive records sent to requester via email.
August 15, 2014 Commission approves Decision 14-08-009, approving the settlement
agreement reached in this matter.

Issue and Background

The Commissions Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) will implement a new standard
procedure to publicly release its incident investigation reports, which often contain information
that the utilities have marked as confidential. Historically, when the Commission received a
Public Records Act (PRA) request, the Commissions Legal Division would make redactions to
create a public version of the report. In the absence of a PRA request, if SED wanted to make a
report public, SED would send the final confidential report to the utility to have them designate
what confidential material needed to be redacted. Then if there was a subsequent PRA
request, Legal Division would make redactions from the original report to make another public
report. This process was problematic for a number of reasons, including the fact that it could
result in the creation of more than one public version of a report.

Process
Going forward, this will be the process for making incident investigation reports public:
OII: If the report is going to form the basis for an OII, SED staff will work with the assigned
advocacy attorney to determine how and when the report will be made public, and the
assigned attorney will determine what confidential information needs to be redacted. Typically
the release of the public report is done in conjunction with the issuance of the OII by the
Commission, and it is expected that will continue to be the usual practice, but in some
situations there may be a need to vary from this practice. To the extent there needs to be
discussion with the utility about specific matters of confidentiality, Legal Division will conduct
those discussions rather than SED. The assigned attorney will coordinate with Legal Division
management and Legal Divisions PRA team as necessary to ensure consistent treatment of
confidential information.
Citation: If the report is going to form the basis for a citation, SED staff will work with the
assigned advocacy attorney to determine how and when the report will be made public, and
the assigned attorney will determine what confidential information needs to be redacted. SED
is seeking to maintain a short turnaround time between finalization of the report and issuance
of a citation, so Legal Division should be prepared to perform its analysis and redactions quickly,
and SED should be sure to request an attorney be assigned prior to finalization of the report.
Typically the release of the report is done in conjunction with the issuance of the citation by
SED, and it is expected that will continue to be the usual practice, but in some situations there
may be a need to vary from this practice. To the extent that there needs to be discussion with
the utility about specific matters of confidentiality, Legal Division will conduct those discussions
rather than SED. The assigned attorney will coordinate with Legal Division management and
Legal Divisions PRA team as necessary to ensure consistent treatment of confidential
information.
No Citation or OII: In some situations, particularly in high profile incidents, SED will want to
make its investigation reports public, even though it is not issuing a citation or seeking an OII.

In these situations, SED will seek review of the document from an advisory attorney, who will
make the determination of what confidential material should be redacted. SED will release or
publish the redacted version. To the extent that there needs to be discussion with the utility
about specific matters of confidentiality, Legal Division will conduct those discussions rather
than SED. The assigned attorney will coordinate with Legal Division management and Legal
Divisions PRA team as necessary to ensure consistent treatment of confidential information.
Due to the potential volume of reports, SED will initially only request public versions of reports
for non-OII/non-citation incidents that are high level, such as those involving fatalities, serious
injuries or significant service disruptions. If possible, eventually all incident investigation
reports would be made public, but only if there are enough resources to do so.