Stackhouse Crosses

Good M/A/E.

1. You’re MG&E’s Executive Vice President of Transmission?

Yes. I oversee the construction, maintenance, and operation of our electrical infrastructure.

You were hired to cut costs and raise shareholder value?

I was brought back because of my experience in finance and management. My responsibility was to improve the company's operations and financial performance while maintaining reliable service and safety.

You decided to cut costs?

I made changes to reduce inefficiencies and redirect resources toward infrastructure improvements. Those decisions were based on the information and studies available to us.

You changed the inspection schedule from every two weeks to every four to eight weeks?

Yes. Our internal studies indicated that equipment issues generally took around ten weeks to become severe enough to generate a fault. We used those findings to determine an inspection schedule that we believed was reasonable.

So you were inspecting equipment less often?

Yes, but the decision was based on our internal studies, not a desire to ignore equipment problems. We also invested in SCADA monitoring and additional environmental sensors to help us identify potential issues.

You shifted from company-employed technicians to local contractors?

Yes. Our consultants found that technicians could spend up to 70% of their time driving. Using local contractors helped reduce that inefficiency and allowed us to direct more resources toward our infrastructure.

You eliminated certain employee benefits and training programs?

We made difficult decisions to reduce operating costs. We also developed a contractor training program. The goal was to make our operations more efficient while continuing to maintain our electrical infrastructure.

Dip Fire Questions

A vehicle struck Pole #4742, and you were informed that it was leaning?

Yes. Morgan Jacob, our control room manager, informed me of the collision and the leaning pole.

You had the authority to overrule the decision about whether to dispatch a technician?

Yes. I had the authority to review the situation and make a decision based on the information available.

And you agreed not to dispatch a technician immediately?

Yes. At that time, the SCADA system showed no recorded fault, trip, or loss of service. We had to consider the available information and the safety risks involved in sending a technician to damaged, energized equipment during hazardous weather.

But the pole had been struck by a vehicle?

Yes, and we took that information seriously. However, we had no recorded electrical fault or loss of service indicating that an immediate dispatch was necessary. We planned to inspect the pole that morning.

The environmental sensor had also issued an alert?

Yes. However, that sensor had a documented history of false readings. We had to evaluate the alert alongside the other information available to us, including the SCADA system's lack of a recorded fault, trip, or loss of service.

Why didn't you shut off the power?

De-energizing the equipment would have interrupted service to residents during the winter and early morning hours. We had to consider the potential consequences of cutting power as well as the information indicating that the electrical system remained operational.

You decided not to dispatch immediately and not to de-energize the equipment?

Yes. Those decisions were based on the information available at the time, the risks associated with each option, and our assessment of the system's condition.

The fire occurred hours later?

Yes. The outcome was tragic, and I deeply regret that it happened.

Your incident team could not definitively determine the cause of the fire?

Correct. The team considered the possibility that the collision caused the pole to lean, increased conductor tension, and contributed to an internal transformer problem, but it could not establish the cause definitively.

So you still believe your decision was correct?

I believe we made our decision in good faith based on the information available to us at the time. We relied on our monitoring systems, considered the risks of the available options, and had an inspection planned for that morning.

Looking back, would you do anything differently?

Any serious incident deserves careful review, and we should always look for ways to improve. But I would not judge the decision solely by what happened afterward. At the time, we had to make a decision based on the information we had, the technology available, and the safety risks involved.