California Public Utilities Commission officials have again put off deciding whether to approve a controversial settlement with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. over its role in the 2021 Dixie Fire, the second largest wildfire in California history.

Commissioners were set to vote on the deal Thursday after delaying a decision in late November in order to gather more information. On Monday, however, regulators again bumped a vote, this time to Jan. 25. A CPUC spokesperson said the new delay was based on a need for “further review.”

The agreement reached between PG&E and the CPUC’s Safety and Enforcement Division would penalize the utility giant $45 million, with $2.5 million going to the California General Fund and $2.5 million going to Indigenous tribes affected by the Dixie Fire.

The majority share of $40 million, however, would be directed to be spent internally on digitizing the energy company’s records.

This drew criticism from advocates who said the penalty fails to hold PG&E accountable or match the magnitude of the disaster.

“This is not a $45 million fine that is being proposed, this is a $40 million present for PG&E with a $5 million fine for the second largest fire in California history,” said Will Abrams, a 2017 Tubbs Fire victim who is now a community advocate. “It just completely does not provide deterrence or accountability for PG&E.”

It sits particularly badly, he said, given that victims of wildfires sparked by the utility continue to wait on payments out of a settlement fund established to compensate them for homes, businesses and lives lost.

In July 2021, the Dixie Fire ignited when a tree fell on the utility’s equipment in Plumas County. Almost 1 million acres burned across five counties over 100 days as a result, causing one fatality and the destruction of more than 1,300 structures.

Cal Fire found PG&E broke various California statutes, and the CPUC’s own investigation leading to the settlement before commissioners determined the utility violated several of the agency’s code requirements. Separately, 10 public entities reached a $24 million deal in January 2023.

In an Oct. 30 letter to CPUC, the Public Advocates Office, a state entity charged with representing ratepayers at the commission, laid out concerns about the agreement currently on the table.

It noted, in particular, that PG&E continued to deny fault as part of the terms, and that future efforts to hold the energy giant liable could be undermined.

Additionally, it will be more difficult to assess if a future PG&E request for ratepayer funding for Dixie Fire-related costs is appropriate.

Notably, the office said, the only corrective action in the penalty — converting paper to electronic records — doesn’t actually address the violations in question.

“The proposed (Administrative Consent Order) allocates $40 million for record keeping improvements; using a fraction of this amount to understand and correct the direct causes of the Dixie Fire would promote the long-term public interest in safe, reliable and affordable utility service,” the letter stated.

“While it is proper for PG&E to transition away from legacy hard copy records, doing so will not address many of the factors that led to the Dixie Fire.”

PG&E spokesperson Lynsey Paulo said while PG&E accepts that a tree falling into its power line caused the fire, the utility believes it “acted as a prudent actor.”

“PG&E is committed to making it right and making it safe for our customers and hometowns. We resolved civil claims with Butte, Lassen, Plumas, Shasta and Tehama Counties regarding the 2021 Dixie Fire and entered into long-term agreements with the counties to strengthen wildfire safety and response programs, and to work with local organizations affected by the fire to help rebuild their communities,” Paulo said in a statement Tuesday.

“We have reached settlements with numerous individuals and families. In addition, we are working hard to make our system safer every day.”

She noted that while PG&E disputes some of the CPUC’s findings, the company agreed not to seek recovery of the costs of record digitization from customers. The initiative accelerates and expands on PG&E’s previous efforts to transition to electronic records, she said. The initiative will also fund the worker training and deployment to use the new technology.

The focus on records is particularly egregious in Abrams’ view since it’s a task PG&E should already have accomplished given a history of record-keeping problems and past commitments to course correct.

PG&E has been convicted of criminal negligence related to record management, and the CPUC found the utility falsified internal safety records for years.

PG&E’s past record practices “on a number of occasions, have already led to them being ordered to transition,” Abrams said. “These are things that they already should have been doing.”

At the Nov. 30 CPUC meeting, commissioners also had questions about the proposed agreement, which some said was light on details about how and why the penalty should be directed toward record digitization and whether PG&E could essentially count the money toward efforts already underway. Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma asked, for instance, whether there was overlap with a project that was part of a previous PG&E rate budget proposal that sought a broad transition of records by 2022.

Commissioners unanimously agreed to delay the November vote to allow time for the involved parties to provide further information, although that would be voluntary and potentially limited, given such settlements come out of a confidential dealmaking process between the commission’s legal staff and the utility.

All the commissioners acknowledged the hard work and difficult task undertaken by negotiators, but commissioners Shiroma and Darcie Houck in particular urged as much transparency as possible.

“We still need sufficient information to make the findings as to whether it’s reasonable in the public interest or in compliance with the law,” Houck said. “That is our responsibility, and it’s our names on the final decision. ... I’m concerned that there’s just not enough information here for me to be able to feel comfortable making those findings.”

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a utility customer advocacy group, said ratepayer representatives used to have greater insight and play a bigger role in such accountability processes, but public participation and oversight has become more limited.

“It’s a new pattern, and one which we are pretty unhappy about,” Toney said.

The organization also voiced concern about a 2021 settlement between the CPUC’s Safety and Enforcement Division and PG&E over the 2019 Kincade Fire, calling the deal “an abandonment of transparency and opportunities for public input.”

Chances to weigh in

Still, there are opportunities for members of the public to weigh in ahead of and during the Jan. 25 vote. Comments ahead of time can be sent to Martha Perez at Martha.Perez@cpuc.ca.gov and Anthony Noll at Anthony.Noll@cpuc.ca.gov.

During CPUC voting meetings, which start at 11 a.m., the public can tune into a webcast at adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc or listen in and comment by calling 800-857-1917 and entering passcode 9899501#.

“In Your Corner” is a column that puts watchdog reporting to work for the community. If you have a concern, a tip, or a hunch, you can reach “In Your Corner” Columnist Marisa Endicott at 707-521-5470 or marisa.endicott@pressdemocrat.com. On X (formerly Twitter) @InYourCornerTPD and Facebook @InYourCornerTPD.