-: Good afternoon, I'd like to call the meeting to order.
My name is Diane Fellman, and I am the Vice Chair
of the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board.
This is a meeting of the board,
and it's our second public meeting,
so welcome to my colleagues and welcome to the members
of the California Public Utilities Commission
Wildfire Safety Division staff who are present,
as well as to members of the public.
Please rise now for the Pledge of Allegiance.
All: I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
-: Thank you, I would like now to turn our...
Actually, I going to jump the agenda just one minute
and introduce our staff so you know who they are.
We are very pleased to have two advisors.
The first one is Jamie Ormond,
because she's putting our name tents out,
and Jamie comes to us
from the Public Utilities Commission staff.
She has a variety of experience with the PUC.
She's been working on renewable natural gas.
She's served as an advisor to one of our Commissioners,
Catherine Sandoval, and she has a broad background
in water issues, especially during the droughts,
so she's familiar with crisis management policy,
and she is also an attorney.
Our second staff member is Katherine Stockton
who has also come to us from the PUC.
I'll use that acronym,
so hopefully everyone will understand that,
it's the Public Utilities Commission.
And she worked on the leading program policy development
for the program with demand response,
which is turning off devices
to save electricity and help the grid.
So Katherine's going to kick us off
with the introduction today.
Katherine? -: Thank you.
So I'm just going to read our safety announcement.
The restrooms are through the rear doors
at the back of the room.
Go straight down the hallway
and they can be found at the right.
If it becomes necessary to evacuate,
there are two emergency exits.
The first is out the way you came
through the rear double doors,
then turn right and exit through the lobby.
The second is through the doors
down on your right for the audience.
For board members, it's on your left.
If you go out those doors, turn left
and head out to the end of the hallway.
The exit will be on your right.
And now we'll give it back to Diane.
-: Thank you, Katherine.
I'd now like to turn to my colleagues on the board
to give a quick introduction
so everyone can know who they are,
and let's start on my left with Chris Porter,
and we'll go right down the line, and I'll go last.
-: As Diane said, my name is Christopher Porter.
I'm currently a assistant business manager
for Local 47 IEBW.
I was appointed by the speaker of the assembly,
Anthony Rendon.
I bring in the experience of being
a over 20-year journeyman lineman.
I've worked for Southern California Edison,
I've worked for the outside contractors.
I currently am a safety liaison for the Local
with two of the investor-owned utilities in our territory.
I am also utilized in that role
with a couple of the munis.
I'm very honored to be here and thank you.
-: John Mader, excuse me, I'm John Mader.
I'm an electrical distribution engineer,
graduating from Sacramento State.
I've been a distribution engineer at PG&E for 22 years.
15 of those years has been as the distribution engineer
for Amador and Calaveras County.
Distribution engineers do the capacity
and reliability planning for communities.
They take into account when they're doing their analysis
on reliability where population centers, travel routes,
economic importance and other critical infrastructure,
such as hospitals and customers
that need critical care due to medical need.
So from that perspective, I bring 22 years
of planning and experience on what is necessary
to keep the grid running
during when it's experiencing issues and problems,
and that's what we have here, right?
We've got both a capacity issue
and trying to design a system
to be able to provide power to these communities
and this high fire-threat district areas
when there's a high wind event,
but also how to provide as much reliability as possible.
And so from that perspective,
I think that I will be able to help in the development
of these Wildfire Mitigation Plans and the guidelines
to try and achieve the goal of reducing wildfires themselves
and the impacts to our communities,
but also the interruptions that come from PSPS events
when those are necessary to be able to reduce those
and mitigate those as much as possible.
-: Hi, I am Alexandra Syphard.
I am a research scientist.
I have spent the last couple of decades
studying wildfire patterns over space and time.
I look at the causes of fires, the drivers of fires,
the impacts of fires, both socially and ecologically,
and I also look at changes in fire patterns over time,
how they've changed before, and how different factors
may result in chances in the future.
I do a lot of mapping and geographical analyses.
And I've also in the last 10 years done a lot of work
understanding wildfire risk to human communities
and why some homes burn in fires and why some homes don't.
So I hope to bring this research experience
and knowledge of wildfire to the board.
-: Is this on?
My name is Jessica Block,
and I'm the associate director for the WIFIRE Lab,
which is a research group at UC San Diego.
My expertise is in using technology
for greater understanding of fire behavior and response,
and in particular situational awareness
and understanding how fire behavior
is becoming an emerging threat
at the wildland urban interface.
I'll leave it at that.
-: Good afternoon, my name's Ralph Armstrong.
I'm also a journeyman lineman, 35 years in this industry.
I started my career out in Florida,
working for Florida Power and Light,
moved to California in 1995
working for Western Area Power Administration,
Department of Energy.
During my tenure there, I was a lineman with them,
as well as an occupational safety and health specialist,
before coming on staff with IBEW Local Union 1245,
which represents about,
well, it's about 23,000 men and women
that are on the front lines working in the industry.
My role, I'm a senior assistant business manager
with Local 1245, and my primary roles are dealing
with all the contractors that are out here
doing the fire hardening work and regular routine work,
all in Northern California and Northern Nevada,
as well as all the line clearance tree trimmers
that are out here moving all the brush and trees
that pose a risk to this industry.
So, I deal with the frontline people on a regular basis,
the workers in the field, plus the contractors
doing the work, as well as the utilities.
And I also take care of most of the safety
associated with our members
and their employers within the Local.
It's a pleasure to be here
and looking forward to doing good things.
-: Thank you all.
Our seventh member, Marcie Edwards, who serves as our Chair,
was unavoidably detained
and could not make this meeting today.
However, she is actively involved
and participating as our leader.
She has served a long career,
starting actually in power plants for LADWP.
She's an engineer and she rose through the ranks there,
and then served as the general manager
of the Anaheim publicly-owned utility
as well as the general manager of the City of Anaheim,
and most recently served as the general manager of LADWP.
So she brings both operational
and publicly-owned utility experience to our board.
I'm Diane Fellman, who has, (chuckling)
referring to myself in the third person, I have,
I'm an attorney and I've had a long career
in California energy policy, starting in the state
with the energy and public utilities Commissions,
and then in private practice.
I worked for two national energy companies,
both NRG Energy and Florida Power and Lights,
NextEra Energy Resources.
Ralph and I did not overlap.
At the end of my career, I retired at the end of 2018,
I served as a staff policy analyst
at the Public Utilities Commission
working on Customer Choice, the Customer Choice project.
So I think with that introduction,
we can go to the next part of the agenda,
and that is I'm turning it back over to Katherine
to talk about background on our board
and what we will be doing today.
-: Great, so because this is only the second meeting,
we'd like to start with a brief background on the board.
The Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
was created by Assembly Bill 1054 and 111.
As you can tell, the board consists of seven members,
one is absent for this meeting.
Five members were appointed by the Governor
and one member appointed by the assembly,
and one by the senate.
So the objective of this board,
the tasks that the statutes have given the board,
are in four different areas,
to create recommendations to support
the Wildfire Safety Division based on the contents
of the recently filed Wildfire Mitigation Plans,
on the guidelines for future plans,
on wildfire mitigation performance metrics
to evaluate investor-owned utilities compliance
with the Wildfire Mitigation Plans,
and on the safety culture of each utility.
And we'll go over a timeline of this later.
For the publicly-owned utilities
and electrical cooperatives, the board will review
and provide advisory opinions regarding the content
and sufficiency of each of the Wildfire Mitigation Plans
and any additional recommendations for wildfire mitigation.
The board will also provide other comments,
advice, and recommendations as requested
by the Wildfire Safety Division or its successor.
And with that,
would you like to review the agenda or shall I, Diane?
Diane: Yes, why don't you go ahead
and walk us through the agenda as well?
-: And then can we move on to the next...
Oh, perfect.
(chuckles)
Well, we have a slide.
Oh, there we go.
There we go, so there's the agenda,
so here we're on zero on the welcome,
and after we get through this agenda review,
we will go over public comment.
The goal of this board meeting
is to get feedback from the public to seek board approval
on the board's foundational documents,
to discuss the approaches that the board will take
in the review of the 2020 Wildfire Mitigation Plans,
and we'll also receive two presentations
from the Wildfire Safety Division.
So after the first round of public comment,
we will discuss the bylaws,
and after that, we will go over public comment
on items three and four, which are the timeline
and the Mission, Work Plan, and Principles document.
There are limited numbers of copies
of all of those documents at the back of the room.
After that, we will review these,
we'll have another opportunity for public comment
on item number five, which is the suggested approach
to review of publicly-owned, coop utilities
Wildfire Mitigation Plans.
And then we will have two presentations
from the Wildfire Safety Division.
One, the review and discussion
of the approval criteria for independent evaluators
that will be assessing the utilities' compliance
with the Wildfire Mitigation Plans, and then a review
of the Wildfire Safety Division's review of the plans.
And then we'll have one more item,
we'll have public comments at the end.
And all of these documents are available on the website.
-: Thank you.
I want to add to the agenda an item
that discusses the distribution.
I'm just gonna mention the distribution, Jason.
Is that all right?
It's not on the agenda.
Thank you, I'm looking to our legal counsel, Jason Rieger.
We are committed to transparency
and to a broad dissemination of our information.
We have our own page on the CPUC's website,
which is included in the notice of the meeting
in the agenda, and Katherine, what is that website, please?
-: It's www.cpuc.ca.gov/wsab.
-: We also have our own email and we're asking,
we each have our own cpuc.ca.gov emails with our names,
and we're also asking if you want to communicate
with the board or you have any questions,
we have a general mailbox at Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
at cpuc.ca.gov, it's also on our website,
it's also on the notice of the meeting.
And Katherine and Jamie will be monitoring that,
and that will be an important place to file,
you should file all your comments there
if you have any written comments
or if you have any questions,
please just send them to the general mailbox.
We are also before each meeting,
we are required under law to post our materials
that are going to be discussed at the meeting
10 days in advance.
We are also sending notice to all the service lists
that are for the proceedings relating to the wildfire
and Wildfire Mitigation Plans.
So hopefully, we'll figure out a way,
so instead of getting eight emails,
you can get one email on that,
but we will be sending that out as each...
I was advised by counsel every board from the Commission,
Public Utilities Commission, does that,
and we invite parties to those proceedings who...
We are not a formal board in the sense of having hearings
or the Office of Administrative Law Procedures.
We are an advisory board.
We will be providing, as Katherine said,
recommendations and advice on the Wildfire Mitigation Plans.
However, we are a public body and we encourage your input.
And with that, I will see if there's anyone
who would wish to make public comment
at the beginning of the meeting.
Please identify yourself.
We will not be having public comment on the phone today.
Katherine: If anyone would like to make public comment,
you can step up to the podium.
-: Seeing that there are no public comments,
we will proceed to the next topic, which is...
Oh, before I do that, I've just laid out some things
on our practice with the public and engaging for comment.
I also wanna mention, and we'll discuss this more
in the mission statement, that we have formed
under the statutory requirements of the Bagley-Keene Act
various working groups on the 10 categories
that the maturity models in the Wildfire Mitigation Plans
are being submitted by, and we're grouping by expertise
with no more than three members on each of those,
and that is how we will be performing our work
in providing input for our products.
So I just wanted to let everyone know in the public
how we were approaching our work and that each of us
is going into the effort
based on our individual expertise,
so we're applying it that way.
So before we go to the first action item,
is there anyone who would like to make some comments
on the organization or operation of the board
from my colleagues?
I also wanna thank everyone, because we were here about,
what, six weeks ago, and we have come so far.
We attended the workshops, we represented at the workshops
and participated in the staff workshops on the WMPs.
We've done a lot of work on organization,
and that is exactly what we're going to be doing today.
The reason I'm talking so much is,
and I won't (chuckling) be the only member talking,
but I did a lot of the organizational work,
and Marcie would be running the meeting,
so those roles combined in me today.
So we'll now turn to the bylaws.
As I introduce Jason, he helped us draft
the original version of the bylaws.
Has everyone on the board had a chance to review the bylaws?
-: Yes. -: Yes.
-: So for the members of the public,
these are bylaws that were prepared by the PUC staff.
I don't know if we have...
We don't have a slide on that, I think, no.
So we looked at this and based on how we were operating,
we adopted most of the boilerplate.
However, we did add a few sections.
I'll go over those quickly.
The first is that, and as I've mentioned earlier today
that we will use our broad expertise
to develop and provide comments, advice,
and recommendations regarding wildfire safety.
We felt that was very important to underscore
how we were going to do our work
and what our commitment was as a board.
We also, minor matter, changed some of the reimbursement
we were allowed, because we wanted to be able
to recover our expenses.
We do have a budget that's carved out of the PUC's budget,
and we wanted to be able to cover our expenses
for doing our work, to site visits,
and to travel to locations with the IOUs,
POUs, wildfire areas outside of our meetings,
and we are adopting that.
I've mentioned earlier, we're an advisory board.
We do not, and I'm going to underscore this,
we do not have direct authority
over any of the jurisdictional utilities for the PUC
nor over the publicly-owned utilities,
the municipal utilities, or electrical cooperatives.
We did remove a sentence regarding that,
because it was repeated elsewhere,
but going into this, we wanted to let everyone know
that we take our role very seriously
and we are going to be working collaboratively,
we'll talk about that in a minute,
with the staff and the local governments.
And finally,
we indicated that we would have
a staff member assigned to help us.
So those are the major changes that we made.
Are there any questions or comments on the bylaws?
If not, then may I have a motion to approve the bylaws?
-: I'd like to make a motion to approve
and accept the bylaws as they are written.
-: I second the motion.
-: I'll call the question.
All in favor?
All: Aye.
-: The motion passes unanimously, thank you.
Now we will talk about the Mission, Work Plan,
and Review Principles as well as our timeline.
And I believe these were both posted on the web,
and there are copies of our...
It's not in the PowerPoint, but there are copies
of the Mission, Work Plan, and Review Principles
on the back table.
Is that correct, Jamie?
So if you want to have a hard copy of that right now.
This exercise on our Mission, Work Plan,
and Review Principles was very important for the board
because we had an opportunity to really think
about what we were doing, how we wanted to do it,
and where our work fits in with the work
of the Wildfire Safety Division
and the California Public Utilities Commission
for the investor-owned utilities.
I will short that to IOUs for brevity's sake,
as well as to the POUs,
the publicly-owned utilities and electrical cooperatives.
We'll be having a special agenda item,
a separate agenda item on those
that Board Member Porter will go over later.
This also served as a mechanism
for us to coalesce as a board around our directives
and interpret them in a way
that we could establish objectives
that utilized our expertise, were achievable,
and met the statutory timelines that we have before us.
We wanna work collaboratively with the staff,
as I mentioned, but also with the utilities,
the city and county state governments,
and the members of the public
to bring to the Wildfire Safety Division and the POUs
the best practices,
the validation of work that they're doing,
which may be the best practice,
and also recommendations on how to improve.
We wanna serve a function that we represent the entity
that can ask the questions the public may wanna ask
and doesn't have the expertise to ask.
So that is part of our mission statement as well.
And finally,
we want to make sure that our work is focused on matters
that we deem of the highest priority and importance,
and there are thousands of pages
in each Wildfire Mitigation Plan,
so you may not see us opining
on very section or every instance.
However, we will designate what areas
are of utmost importance
and develop our recommendations on those.
So that's an overview of what we have
in our mission statement.
Are there any other comments,
or are there any comments from my colleagues?
-: Thank you, Diane,
I'd like to call your attention to reviewing the principles
of the Wildfire Mitigation Plans
in when we were attending the technical workshops
and the presentations of the Wildfire Mitigation Plans
from the IOUs,
it became clear that when they were considering
the impact of PSPS events,
they weren't considering those as service interruptions,
or at least some of the utilities weren't.
From that, I've been able to surmise
that the PSPS events themselves,
because of the risk beneficiency analysis
were considered some of the most cost effective ways
of mitigating an undesirable condition,
which is the ignition, the utility-initiated wildfires
in the high fire-threat district areas.
But we also saw a lot of public comments
from folks that were questioning,
who had a desire to avoid PSPS events in of themselves.
And so that's one of the things
that's in our mission statement.
We are gonna be reviewing these Wildfire Mitigation Plans
not just from the perspective
of avoiding the utility-initiated wildfire,
but also from the perspective of trying to avoid
so much as possible the PSPS events
and their impact and mitigate those impacts.
-: Thank you, John.
Just to highlight the contents of the Work Plan,
in addition to what Board Member Mader just described,
we incorporated our statutory responsibility,
and I believe Katherine went over that at the beginning,
but I wanna underscore that we will be looking
at the contents of WMPs, Wildfire Mitigation Plans,
we'll be looking at those beyond what was mandated
by the enabling statute Senate Bill 1054,
and I wanna underscore this,
we have been asked to focus on and really hone in on
wildfire safety and mitigation performance metrics
for evaluating the WMPs and determining IOU compliance
with them and using our expertise to do that.
And finally, we have a general obligation under the statute
to look at the scope and process
for assessing the safety culture of each utility.
So this is a very important document
because we again identified our statutory responsibilities,
John talked about what our principles are.
How we're going to do our process is that we have,
as I mentioned, our Bagley-Keene groups
on each category of the 10,
we'll be providing our evaluation.
Our staff is serving, this is important
because of Bagley-Keene restrictions,
no more than three of us will be talking and gathering
and focusing on any one particular subject,
so staff will compile all that,
we will have a document to review,
and that document will be published
at the same time to the public as it is internally to us.
The members of the public and the Wildfire Safety Division
won't be reviewing it, it'll launch out
and we will all be looking at it at the same time,
and that's how our review process will work.
There may be instances where we do not form consensus,
and in that case, we have a provision
to allow for both concurrences,
if somebody's come to the same conclusion
through a different path or dissents if someone disagrees.
And finally,
we are going to focus on the four categories,
and I'll underscore those again.
Vegetation management and inspections,
grid design and system hardening,
the resource allocation methodology,
including risk/spend efficiency,
and communication with the community,
planning, preparedness, and recovery
after public safety power shutoffs.
I don't even know, PSPS events, that's what it is,
right, John? -: Yes.
-: All right, so that is an overview.
We are adopting this and we will be working toward this
as our north star during our process.
So before we call the question,
are there any other comments from the board?
All right, may I have a motion for adopting
the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
Mission, Work Plan, and Review Principles
for the Wildfire Mitigation Plans?
(laughing)
-: Madame Chairperson, I make a motion
to accept the language as is
in the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
Mission, Work Plan, and Review Principles
for the Wildfire Mitigation Plans.
-: Thank you. -: I second.
I second. -: All in favor?
All: Aye.
-: Thank you.
Ooh, we're moving quickly today, good.
The next item on the agenda is the timeline.
The timeline has been published, there's copies in the back.
There's a lot going on.
We try to make this as clear as possible.
There is a legend in the upper left-hand corner.
It's very small to see on the screen.
That's a little big bigger.
It's color-coded so that red represents the below the line
and there is no meaning or attribution
on where things are located or what color they are,
but the Wildfire Safety Division deadlines
are below the line,
our board activities are above the line,
things relating in general
or specifically to the IOUs are in black,
and the POUs are in blue.
And then we have our icons,
which you can see in the box that we have advisory,
our recommendation deadlines, which are the little notes,
the meeting dates with the people.
We wanted to also put out the posting dates.
I know many people aren't here today,
so if you're watching or listening in,
some of these dates are not 10 days before
because we wanted in particular
to give Wildfire Safety Division a chance
to see our recommendations ahead of time,
and in particular I also wanna emphasize
that our next publication date will be March 31st.
So we want to have that in advance of the May 3rd deadline
of WSD's certification determinations.
This is a very, very busy timeline
between now and our deadline of June 30th,
which is under the statutory requirement
that we have our final 2021 recommendations
on the Wildfire Mitigation Plans requirements.
So that will be going to WSD, the Wildfire Safety Division,
who will then take that, our recommendations,
into consideration and they have a schedule where,
and you'll see that in red below,
where all the materials will be adopted
by the full Public Utilities Commission.
That is a long explanation.
Hopefully, this is visually accessible to folks
and you can sort out where things are happening.
And for purposes of the board, these will be our guideposts
for when we have to provide information.
So any board questions on the timeline?
Any staff comments on the timeline
or on the mission statement?
-: Regarding the timeline, can you hear me?
Perfect, you will be hearing from us.
We look forward to working with you.
-: Thank you, and we're going to be...
This is gonna be very fast,
and I also wanna take this opportunity to thank,
I think I said it earlier, but I'll say it again,
to thank everyone for engaging and being really excited
and actively involved in the board's work,
'cause it's been remarkable, a fast timeline
and remarkably in-depth input on this.
All right, so before we have a vote,
we are going to have public, I think it's on the agenda,
we're gonna have public comment
on either the mission statement or the timeline.
And could you please step up to the podium,
identify yourself, and our time for public comment
is about three minutes.
-: Good afternoon, my name is Nick Cronenwett,
and I am here on behalf
of the California State Association of Counties.
We represent all 58 counties across California.
Wildfire mitigation and PSPS issues
are really a top priority for CSAC,
particularly in the last few years.
We've had a lot of our communities
that have been really impacted dramatically
by both wildfire and PSPS shutdowns.
We are actively engaged in the rule-making at the CPUC
on de-generalization and PSPS issues.
We've been tracking those and providing comments
on all those different phases.
I know there are many.
And actually also recently, too, we gave public comment
in the Assembly Energy and Utilities Committee hearing
that was looking at the WMP plans as proposed by the IOU.
And I'm gonna share just a couple of pieces of information
that we shared with that committee as well
in the hopes that this information
will be helpful to this group, too.
We are really strongly in favor of mitigation,
as the number one priority in these WMP plans, obviously,
with the vegetation management, grid isolation,
being able to target how you shut down, when you shut down.
That's very important to our members
because it limits the impacts
of both potential wildfires and then in the future PSPS.
And then moving forward to PSPS,
we realize that's a very effective
and important tool for IOUs to be able to use,
but in the event that that becomes the decision to be made,
we hope it'd be the measure of last resort.
And in the PSPS process, we've noticed a few things
that we think would be really helpful to local governments.
Local governments are great points of contact
for all of these WMP plans and the IOUs.
They have community resources,
they're able to communicate really effectively
with their constituents,
provided that they're given reliable information
from the IOUs about when the PSPS shutdown might occur
and specific areas about where that PSPS might occur.
Also, bringing us in early in the coordination process
would be really helpful for these things
so that we have open lines of communication
with the IOUs prior to the PSPS event
so we can really help inform constituents and rate payers
of potential PSPS shutdowns.
Finally, the other thing that we would say in terms of PSPS
that could be something that this group could look at
would be the community resource center piece.
When IOUs have to provide services in areas
that are blacked out, where are those locations?
Are they safe, are they accessible?
Can people charge their backups, that sort of thing.
So again, we stand as definitely an able and willing partner
to help the advisory board in whatever you might need,
and again I wanna reiterate
that it is a really important priority at CSAC.
And finally, too, just on one last public comment,
I know that the mission values were already adopted,
but I wanted to point out that maybe under
the second review principles for Wildfire Mitigation Plans
at the top of page two, it says active community engagement,
especially for limited ingress/egress, low-income,
disadvantaged, and access and functional needs.
And I thought maybe you could consider
putting in local governments as well,
because we have a connection to most of those groups,
we run the health and human services programs
in counties as well.
So that might be something for the board to consider,
so I put that up there for your consideration.
And I'll leave my card here with the staff, too,
so if you need to get in touch with us, you can.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, and Board Member Porter and I
are working on that category,
so if you can stay till the end of the meeting,
we can connect and figure out a way to go to the next step.
Does that sound good? -: Sounds good.
-: Okay, and I think I may have jumped the gun on the vote,
but here we are.
Now we're going to turn to what are we doing with 2020's
because I incorporated in the mission statement
talking about our overview.
So before we go to the publicly-owned utilities
and Board Member Porter, Katherine and Jamie,
could you please just give us an overview
of what we are going to be doing in the process for 2020
for the IOU Wildfire Mitigation Plans?
-: Thank you, Diane.
This is Jamie Ormond again, a newly-assigned staff member,
happy and excited to work with you all.
An outline of the process going forward
for this first document that we're putting together
for the IOU review, we have a template
that is nearly complete that will sort of provide you
with guidance for the recommendations
that you're going to be making.
We are very hopeful that within your BK groups,
we will start hearing back from you
with your preliminary thoughts about the guidance
written down by Wednesday, the 18th,
so that's a week from today.
It doesn't have to be 100% done,
but we're very hopeful that your guidance
is going to start rolling in to us,
your staff, next Wednesday.
We will put together a document.
We will make it look pretty good.
We will figure out how we're going to be circulating
review questions to make sure
that we're all moving forward on the same page.
That doesn't mean we're gonna be making any decisions.
We're just gonna be doing some editing
and getting some comments.
And then once we pull it all together,
it will get posted on the website on the 31st as our draft.
That draft will then be more
formally reviewed by board members.
You will be sending us your formal comments on the draft.
We will figure out how to incorporate those comments,
and then have a final document ready for a vote
at the next meeting on April 15th.
Do you have anything questions for me at this time?
Happy to take any questions.
You will definitely be getting emails from me
probably tomorrow at the earliest, maybe tonight, soon,
and you can always call me.
I'm your staff, so please don't hesitate.
We're here to help.
All right, Diane, if you don't have any questions,
if the board doesn't have any questions,
thank you very much.
-: We'll now turn to an area that this board is formulating
on its own because the publicly-owned utility sector,
including the municipal utilities
and the electrical cooperatives is not jurisdictional
to the Public Utilities Commission
nor is there any other oversight authority for those.
Could we put up the slide
on the publicly-owned utilities, please?
This slide was prepared by that cohort,
and we wanna thank them.
They worked very closely with our Chair, Marcie Edwards,
so I want to acknowledge her work in this and everything
in supporting the development and organization of the board.
This slide in particular was put together.
We asked for a consolidated view
of what the POUs were doing with their WMPs
and how they planned to comply.
So this is an official thank you from the board
to those entities for putting this together,
and I'm going to turn this over to Board Member Porter
who has been actively involved in this
to lead the discussion. -: Thank you, Diane.
There we go, yeah.
Part of the POU/BK and we met and had a few discussions
about how and what we'll be looking for.
Our discussions basically started out
with how we are going to accept
the submission of the WMPs from the POUs.
We understand that by statute, the deadline has been set,
which is July 1st, but we wanted to set a date
to begin to accept POU Wildfire Mitigation Plans
starting now, which actually I wanted to make a motion
to start to set an acceptance date of April 1st,
and if anybody would like to second that,
or have a discussion.
Diane: I want to just check with legal counsel
since we didn't announce that as an action item.
If we can have it as a formal motion
or we just have it as a consensus of the board.
So Jason Rieger, could you please let us know
if we can vote on that?
Jason: Yes, I've looked at your agenda,
and I think it's sufficiently wide in scope
that you could do this here.
Diane: Thank you.
-: Or discussion.
-: Actually, why don't we go through,
'cause there may be other things we want to vote on
or you may want us to opine on,
so I think because this is new to everyone
except myself and Marcie Edwards,
is that okay if you do that, Board Member Porter?
-: Absolutely. -: Thank you.
-: So in our discussion, we expressed a desire to work
with the POUs and their representatives,
which right now we'd like to invite
the Northern California Power Agency,
Southern California Public Power Authority,
and the California Muni Utility Association
to help us discuss a type of standard template
in order to evaluate
the areas that we right now think are important to address.
We understand that each one of the munis is different,
that they are unique in scope,
some are less than 30 square miles,
others 500 square miles,
and they have unique responsibilities and characteristics.
However, we do believe that we'll be able to find
some commonalities in their operation,
due to the fact that they truly are utilities.
We want this template to focus in on
as we go through their WMPs
identifying the high fire-threat areas
within their jurisdiction,
their mitigation plan
under situation awareness,
how they are to
move forward with that,
their actual implementation of those plans
concerning situational awareness,
also their focus on hardening
the areas that are in Tier 2 and Tier 3,
the scope of their assets in those areas,
also their plans to initiate a PSPS event.
We wanna make sure that there is a acceptable threshold
that mitigates and limits the level of threat of ignition
from all the POUs that border and operate within the IOUs
who have an acceptable standard.
We also want to have them look at what they've done now,
in what current state they're existing,
and what their plans are moving forward to get to a reduced
and mitigated level of threat of ignition.
And I think that to give us time to review those,
ultimately I believe there's over 40 POUs
that we'll be reviewing in a varying size of plan
giving us enough time
which would be what I was trying to say
that I think we should start the submissions
and give us enough time to review them in April,
starting in April.
-: Is that it? -: Yeah, that's it.
-: Well, now what we'll do is we'll have board discussion
on this item, then we'll have public comment,
and then we'll have a vote,
we'll have the motion and the vote.
Mr. Mader?
-: I believe we have attempted, but we would like to work
with the associations that represent those POUs.
-: Can I suggest that we consider setting a date
for the issuance of those guidelines and requests,
and then setting a date afterward
sufficient for them to comply with those guidelines?
-: That's a very good suggestion,
and the BK group can work, as Mr. Porter said,
with the associations to come up with a workable schedule.
So as I interpret this April 1st deadline,
it's really to underscore the urgency,
and then we'll figure out exactly,
will let people know what they want,
and let them have time to comply.
Is that a fair statement? -: Yes.
-: So we should plan on having another meeting.
I think there's a way to do it by phone
in order to effectuate a vote
to set a date for the required submissions.
-: Again, I'll call upon Mr. Rieger, but my thought,
and let's see if it's legal,
my thought is that that can be delegated to the BK group
as a procedural matter.
Is that correct?
-: So we're talking about setting one of these dates
through the BK group?
The BK group can talk about it
and find out what will be the best date.
The BK group cannot act on behalf of the board.
It would need the board's vote
to say this is the word of the board,
but it can certainly come and say
this is what the BK group thinks is the best date,
this is the date we will be advising
or requesting the full board to take a vote on,
or something along those lines.
-: First a meeting-- -: Could I just--
-: Excuse me. -: So given that,
what I'd suggest, and I'm also part of the POU/BK,
so I'll look to...
We're doing this in realtime,
so here's actual public decision making, exciting.
What I would suggest is we talk since it's March,
what's today, March 11th, that we come back and get,
we have a working outline and we come back
and get board authorization on April 15th.
I think that'll be close enough to the date.
He's thinking...
-: Yes, that would be fine. -: That'll work?
-: Yeah. -: Okay.
And if it doesn't work, if April 15th is too soon
for whatever reason, we can always push it
to the next meeting, but we'll sort that out
through a recommendation of the BK group,
and again, Mr. Porter and Ms. Edwards
will be leading that effort.
-: Chairman Fellman, I believe that in order to be effective,
we should probably issue a guidance
on what we are looking for in these WMPs,
which I believe would require action
by the board to sanction,
and then a sufficient period of time from that date
to require submission of WMPs from the POUs.
So there's actually two working dates here
that need board approval, right?
And there is the pressing matter of time,
as Board Member Porter has raised,
so is it possible that we would consider that the BK group
could work on a draft guidance for the POUs
and then we could plan to have
some sort of teleconference meeting in order
to authorize those to facilitate the submission
of those WMPs by April 15th,
if that is indeed the decision of the board
or the desire of the board?
-: Did you wanna comment, Mr. Rieger?
-: Yes, I wanted to respectfully make a suggestion,
is that you have the board here in full right now,
you could adopt the dates you like,
subject to change at a further meeting
after the BK partnership group goes
and talks to the stakeholders.
They could come back and say,
"The dates we approved were perfect,
"we're gonna stick with them."
They could come back and say,
"We suggest the board modify those dates."
In terms of teleconference meetings,
I editorialize here that Bagley-Keene
is willfully out of date,
and there are some serious limitations
to have a 100% virtual teleconference meeting.
You may have teleconference meetings from public locations
such that one of them could be here, one could be in LA,
but they all need to be at a place
where the public can show up.
The other thing is since you are an advisory board,
you may also have one physical location
where the public can show up
and a majority of members are present
at that public location,
but the other members can call in from a nonpublic location,
such as their home office or what have you.
-: Here's my recommendation based on your advice,
Mr. Rieger, and your concerns, Mr. Mader.
I'm hesitant to have us set dates right now
because part of our process
is having input from the stakeholders.
However, I think what we could to,
what I'd like to suggest that we do,
is use April 15th
as the time to approve
the guidance documents as well as the deadlines,
the schedule for submission.
I think we can have both of the...
And then if we need to change that, we can,
but I think if we set April 15th,
that is a realistic 30-day deadline from now
in order to pull all this together.
-: Chairman Fellman, that would mean that we'd be setting
the due date after April 15th
and giving the POUs a sufficient amount of time
to comply with the guidance.
I am somewhat concerned because of the numbers,
the need for urgency,
but if you think that that would be sufficient.
-: Well, and I'm gonna turn to Katherine Stockton
to advise us, but my recollection
is that the WMPs are due July 1st.
-: Right, that's what I was gonna say,
the statute requires that they have mitigation plans
in effect prior to January 1st, 2020,
but the first time they have to submit them to us
under statute is July 1, 2020.
-: By guidance by April 15th,
and they will submit them by July 31st, all right.
-: But you could also set another date
that says if you'd like to turn them in early,
please do, and here's this other date.
-: Yeah, my suggestion for an early in
really is due to the...
They're gonna be in varying sizes.
LADWP is gonna be larger than a smaller municipality
near Stockton.
SMUD is gonna be larger.
Giving us enough time to review them
and find commonalities in each one, to set best practices,
that's important for us not just to rubber stamp them.
Just looking at the IOUs WMPs, they were vast.
It was more for us, not for them,
(laughing)
to asking for them to be in early.
The guidelines that we would set forth,
and again we would wanna work with the associations
to prepare them, not just to do this in a vacuum,
show up and go you should have known we wanted this
and issue an opinion and then a recommendation
that they're not prepared to meet.
So with that, bringing them in early,
giving them enough time to submit, sit down and focus,
and hardening, veg management, situational awareness,
and also matching some threshold with the IOU
that they share a territory with a PSP event,
that's reasonable,
that's the reason for the early in.
-: And again, I think my...
Is this on?
My recommendation then...
Testing.
My recommendation...
Is someone...
Oh, there it is, I heard it now, okay, thank you.
My recommendation is that the things we want to accomplish,
that goal and to have the input realistically,
we're looking at April 15th that we lay it out by then.
I mean, this will be an ongoing communication.
Again, they are to submit by July 1st,
so we want them to have...
We should be talking to them,
we want that to be a robust discussion,
and then we have an opportunity,
and there's a question mark in our timeline,
we don't have a deadline like the June 30th
to the Wildfire Safety Division.
We have an open deadline on our recommendations.
We can schedule this
so it meets our board's objectives
and fully incorporates the input from the publicly-owned.
Because I'm struggling with,
I hear that you want to have it early,
but I'm struggling with just the...
I'm looking at it
from a practical base, yes. -: Logistics of it, yes.
I ultimately believe the lion share of the POUs
understood that July 1st was coming as a deadline
to have their POUs Wildfire Mitigation Plan submitted.
I believe that there are several ready to submit them now
and I also believe from the last hearing that we had,
we were asked to sooner than later
set a date for them to submit.
And I do actually believe the date was April.
So it behooves us to get it in sooner than later,
even though we don't have a statutory date
of a deadline to issue opinion and recommendations.
-: No, I'm just again from the practical standpoint,
I'm trying to understand, I'm a bit confused.
The POUs have prepared Wildfire Mitigation Plans, correct?
Is that what you're...
And we are going to provide a guidance document.
So number one, are you asking them to submit their WMPs
that they have already done as soon as possible?
Is that your question? -: Yes.
-: Okay, so that's different.
So that's the WMPs that have already been done,
yes, absolutely, those can come in if they have...
And let me ask-- -: That they have already done?
-: Not to submit WMPs tailored specifically
for our guideline. -: Correct, thank you.
Yes, that wasn't clear. -: Yes, I'm sorry.
-: And if I may turn, is anyone, Susie Berlin,
if I may ask you to step up and put you on the spot?
-: There's three parts to this,
and let me make sure I understand
what Mr. Porter's trying to do.
We'll wait a minute.
And did you have a question,
Dr. Syphard? -: Oh, no, well,
I was just wondering if they had already been done?
-: So number one, the three parts that I understand
we're looking for, number one is having this sector,
the publicly-owned utilities and the electrical cooperatives
submit the WMPs that have already been done,
correct? -: Yes.
-: Secondly, based on reviewing those,
we will provide guidance to them
for the July 1st submittals, is that correct?
The second thing will be a guidance document
from the board. -: Guidance, yes,
on ultimately what we will be focusing on
in the POU Wildfire Mitigation Plans that we have, yes.
-: Good, and the third thing will be
they'll submit them on July 1st,
or no, yes, they'll submit the board--
-: They're all required to have, yes.
-: The board guidance WMPs on July 1st,
and then we'll review those for the next round.
Okay, I'm clear.
Are there any other clarifying questions
or comments from board members?
-: I was just wondering, so they do already,
all of them have Wildfire Mitigation Plans in hand
that they could turn over?
-: I don't know if every single one,
but we were asked to provide them a submittal date,
and due to the size in volume of the documents
I believe are going to come in,
some I believe will be two paragraphs long,
I believe that they understood what they were required to do
and they have been working on that,
and so now it's time to open the door
and allow those to come to us,
so that we can start to vet them.
-: So Ms. Berlin represents a number CMUA...
Well, you can tell us who you represent,
and can you please answer the question
of whether there are already...
Are there existing POU Wildfire Mitigation Plans?
-: Yes, I can answer the question.
My name is Susie Berlin,
and I do work for the Northern California Power Agency.
I don't represent CMUA,
the California Municipal Utilities Association,
but the statutory requirements were for the POUs
to adopt a Wildfire Mitigation Plan
before the end of the year
and then submit those plans to the board by July 1.
It was a month's long process,
and the plans that the different POUs adopted
all addressed the various statutory elements
that are already set forth,
and they will take different forms and shapes
because they have different utilities were preparing them.
As a practical matter, I don't envision any scenario
where a plan that took months and months and months
to prepare would be able to submit it even after April 15th
and get your feedback and resubmit it by July 1.
I believe that the guidance,
the areas that you're looking to focus on
that working with NCPA and CMUA and SCPPA
that a template of sorts can be put together
that would allow the POUs to maybe provide a cover sheet
or something that says here are areas in our plans
where those sections are covered,
and I believe that's exactly the kinda thing
that you would provide feedback on for the next iteration
when the plans are submitted for the next year.
-: So, (chuckling) with respect to...
So were there any WMPs submitted in December of '19
or prepared for December?
When you say the end of year,
do you mean end of '19 or end of '20?
-: '19.
-: The plans were prepared at the end of '19,
correct? -: Yes.
-: So everyone has, everyone of these entities,
or at least to your knowledge with NCPA,
they have a plan already.
-: They have Wildfire Mitigation Plans, yes.
-: And I think what we're asking is what they already have
when we should to-- -: So to clarify,
it isn't to resubmit again
a revised WMP by July 1st,
it is then to address the recommendations after July 1st.
Get them in.
(laughing)
Everyone has their WMPs in so that we can review them,
get our opinions and recommendations to that,
hopefully we can all work together
and create a template by which we can move forward,
understanding exactly what this board would like to see,
and then issue those recommendations
after the submittal sometime.
Again, there is no date when we do that for each entity.
Maybe it's separate, maybe it's holistically.
But sooner than later, 'cause I assume
that you represent the individuals or entities
that have them ready now.
-: Well, I think again we're conflating a few things here.
So, I wanna make sure we get what is needed,
so I think what we're asking,
I think it's going to be impossible
to get the next iteration, if you're asking for the July...
Are you asking for the July 1st submittals
to be accelerated?
Is that what you're asking for?
-: No, just a date to begin to allow them to come in.
Right now, I think maybe one,
Katherine or, has any POU submitted a WMP to us?
Katherine: We got one
from the Imperial Irrigation District
and LADWP, but there might-- -: But those are the ones
that were done at the end of '19, correct?
Katherine: I believe so, yes.
-: So everyone can submit to you
what they've already done as of December 2019,
then we can look at those,
we can develop some guidance quickly,
send that back to them, so in their July submittals,
they reflect our input, and then they submit in July,
we look at July, and then we do another turn.
-: Okay, I'm gonna ask a question,
and I'm gonna have to use your first name
'cause that was easier to remember than the last name.
(laughing)
So the WMPs prepared in December are for the 2020 submittal.
-: Correct. -: Okay.
And so if those are ready,
you are capable of submitting those to us
by April 15th or April 1st?
-: I an unable to say that all of the POUs
would be able to submit them by April 1st.
I mean, I don't know, some of them may have to have
a city council meeting or some other board action
to formalize the submission of the plans.
I do know that for purposes of the July submittal,
we are talking about plans that are the 2020 plans,
and that nothing...
It's not a brand new plan
that would be created between now and July.
-: So if the beginning of the submittal date
began April 15th, and by the way,
it's April 15th through July 1st
is the actual submittal period,
would they be able to do so,
the entities that you represent?
-: I can tell you that everybody
would be able to submit them by July 1.
I believe that there are those
that would be able to get them in sooner.
I can't speak for exactly when that would be,
but I do believe that working with the NCPA
and CMUA and SCPPA and coming up
with what it is you're looking for, for these submittals,
and a request to get them in as soon as possible
makes a lot of sense,
but the fact that they may have different
approval processes, wait for different city council meetings
to say, yes, this can now be sent off,
I cannot commit to saying everybody
could have them to you in six weeks.
-: So for clarification,
currently they are able to submit now,
so we've got two of them already,
so putting a date there doesn't matter.
I would suggest that we make a recommendation
to all the POUs to submit as soon as possible
so that we can look and help build the template
that you're recommending.
I don't think we can put a date, increase,
up the date that's required by law in the first place,
but the fact that some are submitting already,
they have the avenue to submit,
so I don't believe we need to add a date
if they can do it already.
Katherine: I also wanted to let you know
real quick, sorry, we also received
Glendale Water & Power's Wildfire Mitigation Plan.
-: And in the simplistic form, really what this is,
is where the starting line is.
(chuckling) That's all it is.
We're not asking to burden any of the POUs.
It just lets them know, hey, starting on Tuesday
I can start to
send my WMPs to the board. -: Thank you.
Thank you, so that helped a lot.
So what we're doing, and let me make sure I understand,
what we're doing is the WMPs that have been prepared
statutorily have to be filed by July.
We're asking those to come in as soon as possible.
Based on all of those, up to July 1st submittals,
we will develop a template for 2020 for the next one
that will be filed at the end of the year, end of 2020.
Got it, okay.
Any other questions or clarifications?
And that's what you're asking for.
-: Absolutely. -: That went a long way,
but thank you for hanging in there with me.
Does staff have any questions
before we go to public comment,
since you'll be helping us?
All right, is there any public comment on this item?
All right, Mr. Porter, you earlier started with a motion,
so let's have a vote.
Do we have a motion on this item?
Mr. Mader?
-: Point of order, Chairman Fellman,
is it really necessary to have a motion?
Can we just issue a request that the POUs,
when they can, as soon as they can, submit their WMPs?
-: All I'm asking for is a motion
to authorize us to make that request
since we're advancing the statutory deadline.
-: Chairman Fellman, I don't actually believe
that we are advancing the statutory deadline.
I thought we had come to some sort of consensus
that we were just requesting that when they could
that the POUs would submit their WMPs.
-: Right, file in advance of the statutory deadline.
I would like to have a vote on it,
because I think it's something...
I'm suggesting we vote on it because it's something
that we wanna work with the WMPs,
but Mr. Porter in his discussion
felt strongly about setting that
and I think we should have an expression
of board support on that.
-: Chairman Fellman, I move that the board request
that the POUs submit their WMPs as soon as possible
to the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board.
-: And to clarify, that's the 2020 WMPs?
Is that what year they're for?
-: I accept the clarification.
-: I just wanna make sure we're...
-: I second.
-: All right, all in favor?
All: Aye.
-: Motion passes and we will delegate this back
to the POU/BK to work with the entities involved
to execute on this and with staff.
Yes, Katherine? -: Just one clarification.
The publicly-owned utilities and cooperatives
can email them to us, Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
at cpuc.ca.gov.
If the file is too big to send through email,
we can work that out, but just give us a holler.
-: Great.
All right, let's take a 15-minute break.
We're a bit ahead of schedule, so let's take a 15-minute,
and then we'll go into
the Wildfire Safety Division presentations.
Thank you.
-: Pass those down.
(laughing)
-: Put those back away. -: Yeah, take it away.
-: John, want one?
-: Okay, hello, board members.
While Melissa's helping to get that presentation brought up,
I just wanted to say good afternoon.
Name is Christopher Meyer.
I'm the manager of the compliance branch
in the Wildfire Safety Division
and the item that I was bringing to you
is for information only at this point,
and the reason therefore is that
what I am gonna be talking about today
is going to be finalized in a written form
and put out for a 14-day public comment period.
So it's nothing that we're looking at people
having to make decisions on today.
It's just to give you an idea
of what our ideas or concept is
so that we can get any feedback
and if we need to make modifications to the draft
that we're working on now, we can do that prior
to put it out for comment.
And I can give you a little background
while they're bringing that up,
but basically this is
part of the Public Utilities Code 8386.3(c)(2)(A).
It's where it requires the Wildfire Safety Division
in consultation with CAL FIRE to make available
a list of qualified independent evaluators.
One thing just, too, for clarification
is there are, if you look at 8386 and 8387,
there are four distinct independent evaluators talked about.
Thank you.
So here let me advance this a little bit, oh, I can.
Diane: Chris, your microphone's a little muddled,
so I don't know if you have to...
Yeah, thank you.
-: That is probably just my voice,
so I will unmuddle myself, hopefully.
Anyway, here's the background is basically
it requires our division in consultation with CAL FIRE
to make available a list of independent evaluators
with experience in assessing
the safe operation of electrical infrastructure
with a March 1st, 2021 deadline.
I'll get to the timing on this in a later slide.
But basically just to clarify then,
once that list is made available,
the electrical corporations are required to engage
one of those independent evaluators from that list.
The reason I wanted to clarify
that they're different independent evaluators,
when you're reading through it,
there's one independent evaluator
that works on the POU stuff in 8387,
there's one, a separate independent evaluator
that is the one that works
for the Wildfire Safety Division as our contractor.
So that's just something if people see various ones
in there, just to keep that clear.
So what we did is we looked through the key task
in the legislation that the expectations
in the legislation of the independent evaluator
that would be the subject of this list
and the task that they need to perform
while doing that evaluation of the compliance
of the electrical corporations,
very simple, I'll go through this,
task one, we wanted to make sure it was clearly pointed out
that the expectation is there, an independent evaluator,
they would be consulting openly, freely
with Wildfire Safety Division staff,
we'd not be someone who would speak through the utility
or only be allowed to talk to us
in the presence of the utility.
We have to have that open communication.
So we wanted to make sure that was very clear.
Obviously, task two is performing
the compliance assurance auditing,
including the field inspections,
basically to be the eyes and ears in the field.
And they also have to provide a report.
So basically what we'd be getting is a compliance report
from the utilities saying how they did over the last year.
We'd get a separate report from the independent evaluator.
It would give us a little bit of a check and bAllences,
and ultimately my staff would be in the field as well,
adding a third set of eyes to make sure
that not only this person was operating independently,
but also to cover any white spaces
that were missed by other people out there.
So task four is a report in deficiencies.
So we'd basically have an audit report
saying here are where the utilities were not compliant
with a portion of their plans,
and we would give them timelines
when we want them corrected.
So the independent evaluator is expected
to help us track that.
We're working on a whole tracking system,
database basically, to make sure that we follow up
on all of these, and then ultimately, one of the last tasks
would be the independent evaluator is required
to report on the resolutions of those deficiencies.
So basically in order to be able to do that,
we set up a list of areas,
and this is actually from the WMP requirements,
the basic 10 categories,
that if they're gonna do a good job on this,
they're gonna have to have abilities in these areas.
With some really good input
from Safety and Enforcement Division staff,
from legal office,
and from contracts, as well as other advisors,
we have been working on this quite a bit
to figure out what the most logical way
to go through this is, and realized that we did
a very extensive review process
on our independent evaluator,
which we're calling our compliance assurance contractor,
the one that would be working
for the state Wildfire Safety Division directly.
So we had bidder, we put an RFP out
with very extensive criteria,
we got very comprehensive bids back,
and one of the things that was pointed out
that it made a lot of sense to have those companies
that had basically demonstrated they had the ability
to be our contractor, if they weren't ultimately awarded,
but they showed that they had the ability,
they should automatically be on this list.
It just made sense.
So that would be one recommendation of ours we'd have.
And those that didn't meet all of the technical,
they fell short in one of those technical pieces
on that RFP, they could submit sort of a short letter
saying here's how we're addressing those gaps,
and they could be on the list as well.
Then for those who did not participate
in that very extensive process,
we would put together a shorter version
where pointing to those requirements within that RFP
saying instead of meeting all of the criteria,
these are the ones that are necessary
in order to meet these 10 criteria,
and that would be a limited number of pages,
very short, very sweet, you could go through that process
and it would be a binary situation
where it had to be pass or fail, not big grading.
We're just trying to get minimum qualifications,
and ultimately the IOU, the electric corporations,
would have to do a bidding process with these companies
to determine if these minimally qualified people
can do specific work
in that electric corporation's territory.
But one caveat there, we wanna make sure
that the scope of that contract with the IOUs
is on point with what the regulation is,
and if there isn't scope created
because the electrical corporations
are allowed to recuperate the cost
of the independent evaluator through a general rate case,
we wanna make sure we manage the scope of work on that.
That is it.
The reason that even though the requirement
isn't until next year to have this list available,
we sorta looked at a timeline going back,
and apologies, I think I have a widescreen version of this,
but we sorta ran back from the desire
to have these independent evaluators as soon as possible,
because some of the oversight tasks,
if they're going to give us feedback
on the electric corporation's compliance
and help us have a counterpoint
to any of the information from the utilities,
we want them to be in the field as soon as possible.
So we wanted to try to accelerate this,
and with help from CAL FIRE in getting the basic areas
set up where we're gonna look, we think we can do that.
So that's why it's an accelerated timeline,
and the final slide is just next steps,
is post the draft of independent evaluator qualifications
for a 15-day public comment period,
and we're already doing several of these other steps
where we're working with other PUC staff
on developing the advertisement.
We're also gonna be putting a website together
where all of this information is on its discreet web page
under the Wildfire Safety Division website,
and then working with legal
to find the contracts
to develop the process for if we have issues
with the independent evaluator,
with them being independent or anything else,
what are process for resolving any of those issues are,
including up to delisting.
So we just wanna make sure that of that's very clear
in the beginning of what our expectations are
in the behavior of these people.
And one thing I skipped over a little bit,
but one of the reasons that we like using the RFP
as the foundation for the qualifications
is within that document, it addressed a lot of things
where we're not trying to say qualified or not,
based on arbitrary issues.
In that RFP it talked about
being a journeyman lineman in IEBW, things of that nature,
certified arborists, registered engineer.
We know that if someone is a journeyman lineman,
they have the experience.
We don't have to make up different criteria.
So by basically using that as a foundation,
we know that the people are going to actually be qualified
and if a third-party entity
has already set up the qualifications,
the training, all of that, it doesn't make sense for us
to try to create something independent.
That is the end of my presentation,
and I'm open for any questions.
Ralph: So just out of curiosity,
because they are supposed to be completely independent,
how difficult has it been to find auditors
that don't have some type of connection?
What distance is set between those auditors and the IOUs
with regards to during the selection process?
-: That is actually an excellent question.
Originally, before, I think Safety Enforcement Division
put an RFP out with the traditional conflict of interest,
very discreet, got no bidders
that could come in on that bid.
So we had to step back and sorta say,
okay, we understand that most of the people,
if you're qualified to do the work in California,
you have the experience in California,
you're gonna have gotten that experience
working with the IOUs, in most cases.
So, there had to basically be more of a situation
where it was looking at firewalls,
saying, okay, you're gonna have connections,
you're gonna have some areas
that could be potential conflicts of interest.
How do we work on setting up firewalls
between the crew that are independent working with us
and maybe other divisions within that company
or other teams within the company
that have either existing
or past relationships with the IOUs?
So it is difficult, because it's a small world
when you find the people that have the experience
that got the experience
working with the electrical corporations.
Okay, at this point, I will turn it over to Melissa
for her presentation, if there are no more comments.
-: Thank you very much, Mr. Meyer.
We really appreciate it.
Miss Semcer.
-: Any lower? (chuckles)
Okay, good afternoon, I'm Melissa Semcer,
the program manager here with the Wildfire Safety Division,
and I'm going to be orienting you today
to where we are in our Wildfire Mitigation Plan
review process for the 2020 Wildfire Mitigation Plans.
And then from there, I'm going to offer some key areas
of I would say public interest
that came out during the workshops,
I know there were varying levels of participation,
Some of you were there the entire time,
and some of you were online listening for various sessions,
so to orient you to what we heard
and to orient the public as well.
So, where we are in the evaluation process
is we are deep in our review.
So it's kinda the circled black box, so to speak,
in the sense that it's not really a black box,
but in the sense of that we and our internal teams
are in the review process as we speak.
So the plans came in on February 7th.
Then we had the informational workshops
where the utilities presented an overview of their plans
on February 18th and 19th.
And then the technical workshops on February 24th and 25th.
We allowed the utilities to provide updates to their plans,
especially corrections, up until March 3rd.
And then we during that time,
have also started issuing data requests.
So our evaluation team consists
of a cross-functional team of subject matter experts,
both from the PUC and also from CAL FIRE.
And we issued a set of data requests on February 26th
that focused mainly on missing pieces of information
that were not contained in the plans,
and that was a large number of data requests
that went out to all the different electrical corporations.
We've also issued a second set of data requests
on March 5th and March 6th,
and those were more item specific
or technically specific areas.
All of those data requests and also updated plans
can be found on our website.
So I wanna orient you to that so that you can find
what's already being asked for by other parties
when you think about offering your own expertise on this.
So we have a website, cpuc.ca.gov/wildfiremitigationplans.
And on that website, each of the utilities has a link,
so if you click, for example,
on Southern California Edison's WMP,
it actually takes you to their website,
so it's not ours, it's going directly to theirs.
And on their website,
you'll find their originally filed plans,
and then when we've asked for data requests,
we've also asked them to send redline versions
so that you can see what is new
as far as data that's being submitted.
You can also see all of our data requests
and then all of their responses.
And in addition, you can see data requests
from other parties that have, for example,
the Utility Reform Network has submitted some,
the Public Advocates Office I believe has submitted some.
So that's the orienting place,
we asked each of them to create those websites
in order to have a roadmap
for everybody to be able to find that information easily.
From here, we plan to complete our review process,
and then begin the writing process for resolutions,
where we'll issue our guidance on whether we wish
to approve or deny the Wildfire Mitigation Plans.
Prior to that, we'll be taking stakeholder comments
on April 7th, and then responses
from the electrical corporations on April 16th,
with the goal of issuing the draft resolutions on May 7th,
and then the earliest Commission meeting date is June 11th.
So, we are in the heart of it right now
and are looking forward to receiving your input as well
at the end of the month.
It seems like these went off-scale for some reason,
the slides, so hopefully you all can see them.
Diane: Are you willing to take questions
on each sort of topic
as we go through part? -: Absolutely.
-: Are there any questions about the submittal deadlines
or the data requests?
Ms. Block?
-: This is a really basic question.
In the data requests that you've submitted,
is there any clear way that they've denoted
which ones came from you versus other stakeholders,
or do you now? -: Yes.
All of ours have a unique ID number that starts with WSD.
-: WSD? -: WSD, yes, yes.
And I believe, depending on the website,
but I believe that they have some of them
separated into buckets,
but it's very clear which ones are ours.
-: Okay, thanks. -: You're welcome.
Any other questions?
Okay, so moving along,
just some takeaways from the workshops.
The first set of workshops
was where each of the utilities presented their plans,
and what we found or what we saw
is that the electrical corporations
are generally progressing on their 2019 learnings.
So their plans are a step forward
from where they were in 2019 into 2020.
The plans were much data-driven
and provided a much more clear picture
on what their inspections findings are,
what their ignition-drivers are, what they were finding
in terms of their climate predictions.
All of these, of course, are a function of the guidelines
that we put out in terms of asking
for particular information and metrics
on which to understand the situation
in the world that they're living in today
so that we can then evaluate each of the initiatives
that they're putting forward
against what is being happening on the ground,
what is causing the ignitions,
to see whether these initiatives are indeed appropriate
to reach the goal of I would say two-fold,
one reducing ignitions, that's the ultimate goal,
and of course reducing the scale and scope of PSPS events,
which is one tool
in the wildfire mitigation toolkit for utilities.
On the technical workshops on the 24th and 25th,
we focused on some deep-dive areas,
vegetation management and grid hardening,
focusing on inspections, and then risk/spend efficiency
and emerging technologies.
We analyzed the key ignition drivers.
The utilities focused a lot,
and so did parties or interested stakeholders,
on the actions that were being taken
to reduce the scale and scope of PSPS events.
One of the interesting questions that was asked
was what do the utilities consider,
if there was one thing that they really figure out,
what would it be?
And for the most part, it was detecting faults
and stopping them as soon as possible.
So there was a lot of interest
in those emerging technologies that detect faults rapidly
and de-energize lines rapidly.
There's definitely a focus
on understanding situation awareness,
upgrading the grid and the configurations of the grid
in order to reduce the scale and scope of PSPS events,
and the utilities had various goals
for re-energizing undamaged lines after a PSPS event
that ranged, depending on how you looked at them,
at about a 24-hour period.
It's 12 hours of daylight hours for PG&E
and 24 for some others,
which essentially if you take nighttime into theirs
is the same thing.
The utilities also faced across the board
some similar challenges, for example,
the ability to retain the appropriate workforce.
For example, arborists and tree trimmers
in order to do the vegetation management
that's being required.
It was also interesting to hear
about the different types of vegetation
and how, of course, across service territories
what the utilities are facing in terms of their programs,
and that helps to explain why they're focusing
on different areas, for example, what the sources of concern
are in terms of types of trees,
or for example, Northern California having a faster
grow-back rate of vegetation as presented by the utilities.
And so we had a productive discussion
that was quite in-depth on risk/spend efficiency
and that's an area that is ripe for growth
in terms of the utilities thinking that way
and presenting the information in that way,
and there was a lot of interest and discussion on that.
Those are just some broad takeaways.
I have a few others that I could get into,
but there's just some broad takeaways of what was discussed,
and I'm happy to go into any areas further
or answer any questions.
-: Thank you, I do wanna note and express our appreciation
that you invited our board members to participate
in the technical workshops.
I was actually going to put them on the spot,
those of who attended, do you have any comments
about the workshops or any additions or questions
that you want to add?
-: It struck me how different the different utilities
were approaching the risk/spend efficiency model there.
It's really wide open over how you interpret the factors
that they're directed to consider in their bow tie analysis.
I think that that's an area that the advisory board
can issue advice or to drive decisions
to achieve the people of California's desire,
which is of course to avoid utility initiated wildfires.
But also from the public comment that we saw,
I think a lot of folks were espousing
that PSPS events themselves are undesirable,
and the risk/spend efficiency instructions aren't clear
or don't make it a priority
to consider the PSPS event itself a risk,
the interruption of power,
the interruption to the economy,
the danger to individuals,
and I think that that's an area
that really became clear to me
through those technical workshops.
So I really appreciate that you invited us
and provided that opportunity to observe.
I really think that that's one key area
that we're gonna be able to make improvements.
-: Forward to it.
-: Hi, I was really impressed on the informational workshops
with how much information could get packed
into their 45-minute presentations.
That was very cool.
And then the technical workshops
I felt like there was really only so much detail
they could get into in that sort of setting,
so I felt like it came across more questions than answers
in the technical workshops, but they were very helpful.
Thanks for inviting us and having us.
It was really helpful.
-: Thank you for participating on a panel.
We appreciated that.
-: Alexandra, Dr. Syphard was observing and engaging,
so we didn't see her there, but you were very much involved.
Do you have any comments?
-: I agree with what Jessica said,
is that I got a lot more out of the informational workshops
I think because they were actually
formally presenting something
which they had already prepared
and so they did pack a lot of information in.
You know, honestly, I was somewhat impressed
at the whole thing.
I felt like, at least on the surface,
everybody appeared to be really earnestly working
toward trying to make improvements in their plans,
but it's a lot of information to digest as well.
-: It is. -: Yeah, thanks.
-: And in our mission statement and I mentioned earlier,
so this is a good opportunity to show an example
where the members of our board
are available to the Wildfire Safety Division at the PUC
as well as to the publicly-owned utilities
in a consultative manner as well to share our expertise
to the extent it's useful for you.
Anything else?
Melissa: I guess I had another slide, I'm sorry.
We went into this, and I can't actually read it,
so it's a little challenging.
(laughing)
(speaking with microphone off)
I'm not sure what's happened.
And we already covered this to some degree,
but just in fairness of actually
having all my slides covered, they're key initiatives
and of course these did vary across the utilities,
depending on their service territories,
were definitely grid design and system hardening,
veg management and the inspections,
asset management and also those inspections,
the grid operations and protocols, including situation,
oh, I'm sorry, and situational awareness and forecasting.
So that trended along with what ended up
being the topics that we looked at at the workshop,
but that seems to be the key initiatives
as they're bubbling to the surface
in the plans of where the utilities are looking.
Any further questions?
Okay, thank you. -: Thank you very much.
And thank you also for channeling
this enormous amount of information
and funneling it into these key initiatives.
It takes a lot of effort to do that,
even though it seems very simple when you see the result.
So again, both Mr. Meyer and Ms. Semcer,
thank you very much.
And we have Caroline Thomas Jacobs in the audience as well,
so thank you for all your efforts.
All right, I think we've come to the end
of our presentations.
Does staff have anything they want to leave us with
before we go to sort of...
I'll take a round of final comments
from the board members after staff,
and then we'll have another opportunity for public comment.
-: Just the timeline, we haven't yet posted it,
but we'll get it posted as soon as possible.
We found one error in the timeline, so I'll correct that.
The vote today,
was it for April 1st that we'll begin accepting,
or we'll begin accepting on April 15th?
-: Yes. -: Okay, so I can put that date
in the timeline as well.
-: Right, Mr. Porter? -: 15th.
-: Thank you.
-: On my end, we look forward to receiving
your first round comments
by Wednesday of new week.
You'll be hearing from me.
I look forward to working with you.
-: Anything else?
We'll now turn to public comment.
Is there anyone who would like to make a public comment?
Please come forward and state your name.
-: Good afternoon, Chris Parks from Public Advocates Office.
I wanted to ask, earlier Chair Fellman mentioned
that the members would be available
to the Wildfire Safety Division and also to the utilities.
Is there an opportunity for other folks
to benefit from the expertise of the panel
if they had specific things
that they wanted to request more understanding of?
-: We had not anticipated that request,
so we'll take that under advisement.
It's not something that was put into our portfolio,
but if you have questions,
please submit them through the staff
and we'll talk about that and see what we can do.
-: Thank you. -: You're welcome.
Any other public comment?
-: Hello, hi, Henry Burton,
also with the Public Advocates Office,
and I was looking at your timeline earlier.
As I recall, you're expecting to send draft
recommendations or comments
on the IOU Wildfire Mitigation Plans by the end of March
and then to adopt them formally in April.
What form are those gonna take?
Are they gonna be...
Is that gonna be a written document that you'll be adopting
or just a set of verbal recommendations?
-: A set of what kind of recommendations?
-: Verbal recommendations.
-: It will be written.
-: It will be a written document.
-: And it will be posted.
-: And it'll be posted at that time?
Would we be able to...
Would members of the public be able to see it
at the draft stage or only after the April 15th meeting?
-: Under Bagley-Keene, you will see it,
we are an open meeting board, so you'll see the draft,
and we'll have opportunity
for public written comment on that as well,
and Ms. Ormond can give you our email address again,
Wildfire Safety Advisory Board at cpac.ca.com.
And of course, I was gonna say
you could walk it over to them, but it would be better,
I don't know which office you're located in,
but it would be better to submit it via email
and they will distribute that to the board.
They're conduit for information.
Henry: Thank you.
-: Any other public comment?
Seeing none, is there a motion for adjournment?
Ralph hasn't moved today.
-: I will put out a motion for adjournment.
-: Second? -: Second.
-: All in favor?
All: Aye.
-: The meeting is adjourned.
(gavel pounding)