DIXIE FIRE Lawsuit

The Dixie Fire exceeded its previous boundaries, spreading closer to Highway 395 and prompting heightened caution and possible road closures, as reported by The Mercury News. As a result of the fire’s continued movement, evacuations were reissued for Honey Lake. To the east of the fire, evacuation orders remain in place, including in Milford. However, many residents are returning to their homes to the west, including regions like Lake Almanor, Greenville, Crescent Mills, and Bucks Lake.

The Dixie Fire is California’s second-largest recorded wildfire and has been raging for just under two months, beginning along Highway 70 on July 13. As of the morning of Sunday, September 5, 2021, the Forest Service fire managers reported that Dixie has now covered 893,852 acres. The fire consumed 8,000 additional acres in just 24 hours. Containment was at 56%.

By Monday, The Mercury News provided another update reporting that the Dixie Fire once again breached its former perimeter, with its eastern edge now touching Highway 395. Accordingly, Milford remains in the evacuation zone.

While firefighters are working hard to contain the fire to the eastern edge of the highway, primarily affecting a thin portion of agricultural land near Herlong Junction, it continues to find new regions to burn, also reaching the scar of July’s Beckwourth Complex’s Sugar Fire, just south of where it met the highway.

Wednesday’s report from the Forest Service fire managers showed an increase in coverage of 4,600 acres since the morning prior, totaling 922,192 acres engulfed by the Dixie Fire. Containment was at 59%.

The investigation into the cause of the Dixie Fire and litigation with PG&E remains ongoing.

Between August 17 and August 19, the Court issued three separate orders requiring information from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), defendant to the U.S. initiated lawsuit filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California. 

Follow-up questions proffered by U.S. District Judge William Alsup aim to clear up several discrepancies with submitted evidentiary documents and PG&E-provided information about the Dixie Fire. Many questions center on the fallen Douglas Fir believed to be significant in the start of the fire, calling to attention seemingly altered photos depicting its condition at the scene of the incident. 

The Court additionally questions the operation of a drone that interfered with the work of Dixie firefighters in mid-July, presumably flown by a PG&E contractor whom the company believed had already completed their work duties for the day. 

Lastly, Judge Alsup asks for clarification about elevated risk ratings for equipment and vegetation. Several questions also reference the accompanying Fly Fire and the White Fir that fell onto the Gasner Circuit, supposedly sparking the initial flame. 

Judge Alsup ordered that PG&E provide its answers to the Court’s questions by August 25 at noon, except for question 7 (regarding the production of reports, memos, and emails concerning the site visit on April 16, 2021, and any details describing or referencing the need to plan for undergrounding the circuit or the problem leading to acquired proposals or the need for such proposals). The Court extended PG&E’s obligation to respond to question 7 to August 31 at noon. 

The following day, August 18, Judge Alsup ordered a further request for responses from PG&E, again shedding light on even more discrepancies in PG&E’s testimony and previously submitted evidence. In the Court’s ordered request, questions include statements like “Another thing that does not add up…” and “Your July 28 submission states… but is vague…” 

The Court exposes several seeming doubts or suspicions about the sequence or truth of events, quizzing PG&E about supposed delays in the fire’s spread based on recorded times and the apparent coincidence of the troubleman’s arrival at the site before the spotting of the fire by anyone. The Court asks if it’s possible that the troubleman might have done something upon his arrival to cause the fire, even accidentally. Additionally, it’s questioned whether the troubleman replaced a blown fuse at the pole as intended and if so, was the troubleman aware of the risks of arcing or the dangers posed by the tree leaning on the line.

The Court requires the receipt of answers for these additional inquiries by August 31 at noon.

After probing more into the troubleman’s possible role in the start of the Dixie Fire, Judge Alsup submitted a third order on August 19, requiring that all responses to the Court’s questions be sworn under oath. Additionally, the Court asked to be notified by August 24 at noon about whether PG&E will voluntarily produce the troubleman who reported the Dixie Fire to testify at the September 13 hearing scheduled for 2 p.m. 

Judge Alsup informed PG&E that if the troubleman will not voluntarily attend, the Court will issue a subpoena and have it served by the U.S. Marshals Service to PG&E and the troubleman’s home address, which PG&E is also to provide to the Court under seal by August 24 at noon. 

PG&E is also required to offer under seal, by the same deadline, the name and address of the PG&E employee who provided information about another employee who saw the drone-at-issue in the contractor’s car on July 14.

Lastly, the Court requested all transcripts of 911 calls and calls to Cal FIRE made by the troubleman or any other PG&E employee to report the Dixie Fire, and radio calls made by the troubleman to dispatch centers at Rocklin and Chico, his supervisor, Cal FIRE, and any other emergency responder, and any return radio calls made to the troubleman.

On August 6, 2021, U.S. District Judge William Alsup for the United States District Court Northern District of California issued an order requesting information from Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) regarding the Dixie Fire, Fly Fire, and other accompanying fires devastating large swaths of land and homes in The Golden State. On August 16, 2021, PG&E submitted a three-part answer, addressing each fire or set of fires separately. 

PG&E asserts that the investigation concerning the cause and origin of the Fly Fire, which overlaps with the Dixie Fire investigation, is ongoing. Additionally, the company emphasizes that it’s assisting and cooperating with the United States Forest Service (USFS) as a part of their ongoing investigation, too, accompanying them on site visits on August 2 and 4. 

A White Fir is the focus of the investigation, with many, including the Butte County District Attorney, examining whether a tree was on a line igniting the fire or the fire started putting the tree on the line. 

PG&E noted that USFS has not yet reported its determination about the cause or origin of the fire. 

However, an enhanced inspection conducted on June 25, 2021, led to the creation of Electric Corrective (EC) notifications for certain poles “sandwiching” the White Fir in question. In the comments section, the notifications state, “Trees growing around the pole” and “Tree limbs overgrown around pole.” Both notifications were outstanding when the Fly Fire began, with the completion date set for June 25, 2022. 

Section 4292 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) requires a clearing of “a 10-foot radius up to eight-feet high of vegetation around poles in a State Responsibility Area that have non-exempt equipment.” Only one pole had non-exempt equipment. PG&E’s records show that routine vegetation clearing work previously took place on the pole with non-exempt equipment on April 20, 2021 and was subject to another clearing on July 31, 2021.

The suspected location of the Dixie Fire involved the Bucks Creek 1101 Circuit. PG&E uses the 2021 Wildfire Distribution Risk Model to rank circuit segments for wildfire risks and identified this circuit location as belonging to a High Fire Threat District (HFTD). This classification reflects the probability of ignition and the predicted consequences of ignition from either equipment failure or vegetation/tree contacts. 

Investigators suspect that a Douglas Fir (not identified for work following two separate vegetation inspections on November 11, 2020 and January 14, 2021) contacted PG&E equipment igniting the Dixie Fire. The most recent tree work to take place near the span of the Dixie Fire ignition happened in June 2019. Additionally, special equipment inspections most recently took place in the span on May 29, 2020 and May 13, 2021, with PG&E’s records showing no requirement for corrective action. 

However, in light of the elevated risk ranking, in January 2021, PG&E identified the Bucks Creek 1101 as requiring system hardening primarily by undergrounding its equipment, aiding in the mitigation of both vegetation and equipment risks reducing the likelihood of wildfires. A site visit with representatives from PG&E and other involved governmental entities, and discussions for planning, engineering, permitting, and construction, occurred on April 16, 2021, but this work had not yet begun when the Dixie Fire ignited.

In an attached two-page listing titled Appendix A to PG&E’s response to the Court, the company identified 62 additional CPUC Reportable Ignitions in High Fire Threat Districts involving PG&E equipment between May 10, 2021 and July 31, 2021. A CPUC Reportable Ignition involves the following:

1. The fire burned material other than that of an electrical or communication facility
2. The fire traveled more than one linear meter from the ignition point
3. The suspected initiation of the fire is attributed to PG&E equipment

PG&E stated that it limited its response “to rely on its ongoing work to track and gather information” for its annual submissions to the CPUC. However, the company acquiesced that it would provide a supplemental response if the Court required additional information about non-reportable ignitions, affecting only PG&E equipment and spreading less than one linear meter. 

PG&E confirmed that it was unaware of any deaths resulting from the ignitions listed in Appendix A, but the company does acknowledge the destruction of one structure on June 16, 2021, for which the suspected initiating event was contact with a bird. 

Finally, PG&E concluded that all information “is preliminary and subject to change,” with investigations and analyses ongoing.