Sage Direct Fall 2026

Good morning Mr. Everly, could you please introduce yourself to the court?

Hello, my name is Sage Everly. I am a mechanical engineer and the owner of Power Consulting.

Power Consulting? That sounds pretty high tech. Tell us about that.

We help investor owned utility companies (called IOUs) evaluate their equipment, maintenance procedures, and emergency response practices.

Mr. Everly, can you please inform the court of your educational background?

Yes, I have a bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering from Case Western, and I have over 3 decades of industry experience in electrical systems.

And what specific experience do you have working with electrical systems?

A lot. I worked for Big City Electric for ten years designing transmission lines, then spent 7 years with the Midlands Dept. of Transportation overseeing electrical utility construction. After that, I opened Power Consulting, where I have evaluated utility companies for 17 years. Don’t look to far into it, I know I don’t look my age, which you don’t need to know.

No worried Mr. Everly, we won’t be doing any of that. Have you evaluated the practices of utility companies before?

Yes. I’ve performed this type of comparative analysis dozens of times, comparing utility companies’ equipment, policies, and conduct against those of industry standards.

So why are you in court today?

I was asked to evaluate MG&E’s equipment, maintenance, and conduct to determine whether any of these things contributed to the Dip Fire and whether they complied with industry standards.

What materials did you review when evaluating this?

Let’s see… I reviews the police reports, photos of the accident scene, a map of the scene, MG&E’s operations manual, pole inspection reports, console data, weather updates of January 1st, the UROC standards manual, as well as a report by a Dr. Nat Prescott while conducting some public record searched of my own.

Did you use a specific method?

Yes, the MMM method.

I’m sorry Mr. Everly, I must’ve misheard you, the what method?

You heard me, the MMM method. Monitoring. Maintenance. measures. Essentially that is looking at MG&E’s monitoring systems, the maintenance of that equipment, and whether or not the appropriate measures were taken that night.

Is this method reliable?

I would hope so, I’ve used it for 30 years.

Did you reliably apply this method to the facts of todays case

Yes counselor

Now, Mr Everly, let’s start with the first part of the MMM method.

INTERUPT … counselor it’s the MMM method, not MMM. 3 M’s M&M

My apologies Mr. Everly… let’s start with monitoring, did you analyze MG&E’s monitoring systems in your evaluation.

Yes absolutely. MG&E’s monitoring systems include the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, and Environmental Monitoring System (EMS)

What do these systems analyze?

SCADA monitors the electrical system for things like trips, ground faults, and circuits. While EMS monitoring things like temperature and air quality to detect potential hazards.

Let’s take those one by one. What did you find when you examined MG&E’s SCADA system?

I found no issue with it. MG&E was using up-to-date SCADA technology.

How about EMS?

They were running EMS software from 2024. Now there is no issue with this as long as the software company continues to update the older model. I also found no indication that MG&E’s EMS crashed or otherwise suggested a major bug or glitch.

Alright Mr. Everly, we have talked about the first M, now I want to talk about the second M, maintenance. What did you find about this?

I’ll start with the transformer maintenance. A transformer is essentially a large can looking piece on top of the pole which helps reduce the voltage to safe levels. Transformers should have routine inspections and testing.

Do you know about the transformer inspections for pole 4742?

To my knowledge, I know the transformer for pole 4742 received regular inspections and never failed before the collision.

How do you know that?

In my evaluation, I found that this transformer had some corrosion back in 2024 and confirmed MG&E conducted follow-up inspections. Those inspections appear to show that all of the issues with the transformer were identified and addressed.

And why do you say that?

Well, the transformer was supplying power reliably over the entire time period, so it’s unlikely that maintenance issues alone could have led to the fire.

Was there anything else important about MG&E’s maintenance that you made note of in your evaluation?

Yes. The EMS system I mentioned earlier had a history of false-positive readings, which is not an uncommon occurence.

False-positive readings? Could you explain that.

Its self explanatory… but I’ll indulge you. False-positive readings are an alert for the EMS that signals a hazard when no real hazard exists. For example, the system might report a temperature spike or poor air quality near a pole even though nothing is actually overheating or burning. Get it?

Did you investigate these false-positive readings any further.

Of course I did. I investigated possible causes for them and while updating software could possibly help, I found that there is no way to know that updating would have resolved the false positive readings on MG&E’s part.

Mr. Everly, I lastly want to go through the last part of your MMM method, measures.

You got it right this time, finally.

Thank you. Are you familiar with MG&E console data from the night of the accident?

Yes

Can you direct your attention to 2:10 am on this sheet and explain what we are looking at here?

Yes, this is when MG&E was first notified about the damaged pole. According to this, it registered a vehicle had collided with the pole but SCADA had not identified a confirmed electrical fault, so there was no one dispatched.

Based on that information, was MG&E’s decision to not immediately dispatch a technician consistent with industry standards?

Well, yes— in my professional opinion, their decision had to be discretionary because SCADA had not identified a confirmed fault, so they weren’t required to send someone at this point.

What do you mean by this?

If SCADA doesn’t identify a confirmed fault, it is understandable that MG&E was reluctant to take the step of shutting off the power for thousands of residents, especially because it was at night on a national holiday, and in the middle of winter. I would’ve complained, I need my reading light; I refuse to read on those amazonian kandy kindle kandles.

Mr Everly, were there any other signals received that night according to the console?

Yes… there was an EMS alert at 3:30 am

Tell us more about that

It means that EMS detected temperature and air quality readings that exceeded normal limits near distribution. pole #4742. However, yet again, the SCADA system did not register any reading indicating a problem with the electrical system when this went off.

Did the EMS ever go off again that night?

Yes, at 4:30 AM, when a fire was reported.

And what did MG&E do

As any sane person would, they dispatched a technician right away.

Mr. Everly, what is you overall conclusion regarding today’s case?

based on the information they had, MG&E acted in accordance with its internal policies and stuck to industry standards.