Marcy Edwards: --to the public comment queue and called upon during the
meeting by the Chair with the assistance of the operator.
All right, this is our first shot at this. I will, again,
congratulate staff on being focused on the public interest
and making sure the public has an opportunity to
interact and share their thoughts with the Board.
So again, thank you. All right, meeting. Slide three.
Are we there?
Call this meeting to order. Today is April 15th. This
is the third Wildfire Safety Advisory Board meeting.
My name is Marcy Edwards, and I will chair this meeting.
I'd like to begin and thank my fellow Board Members.
For doing all the tech checks in anticipation of
this meeting, and again, thank you to our IT professionals
who have done an amazing job trying to tie all of this
together. I do want to make a few quick observations.
One is the the pandemic has altered, literally, altered
the course of our lives in a different short state
of time, not only in our state, but in our nation and
in our world. Unprecedented changes have occurred and
now color the experiences of Californians impacted by
wildfires and reaffirms our commitment to work collaboratively
for the benefit of the members of our great state.
We want to acknowledge and thanks the civil servants
of the state of California who continue to work for
the benefit of us all during very tumultuous time. Our
gratitude extends to our emergency essential service
workers who, every single day, help our society move
forward. Our nurses, our doctors, our hospital professionals,
in all departments, grocers, farmers, goods movers, mail
providers, custodians. I could go on and on. I do want
to list a few additional acknowledgements. If the
Board would permit. Further, to our Governor and
staff for their continued leadership, amazingly strong
support, and it is recognized and appreciated you
kept wildfire safety as a priority, despite having many
other critical items to address. To the CPUC Wildfire
division under Carolyn Thomas Jacob's leadership. We
seriously appreciate your support and your ultimate
consideration of our recommendations. You guys have
done a yeoman's job, to date, and people will be expecting
that going forward. To the investor and publicly owned
utility, who've been so supportive of our efforts, thank
you. To our Board advisors, Jamie Ormond and Catherine
Stockton, as well as others who been assisting them. Our
heartfelt thank you. You have taken the idea of herding
cats to an entirely new level. In addition, a specific
nod to our Vice Chair Diane Fellman, whose understanding
of the nuances and willingness to work long hours has contributed
mightily to our outcomes in our processes. Diane,
thank you very much. I would also like to acknowledge
the public participation that we have had. The public
is the reason that we do the business of the state.
And it's important and appreciated that all of you
continue to participate. And finally, to the members
of this Board, I would acknowledge, not only you are
amazing industry accumens, but also your dedication.
You were appointed to a Board that said they were going
to meet quarterly. And then suddenly we said, well
maybe that's weekly, and in some instances, daily, and
you all have stood up, again, using appropriate virtual
space within the appropriate subgroups. But you all
put hours of work in, and I salute your dedication
and your commitment, and I appreciate your flexibility
allowing me to make those acknowledgements. And with
that, I would like to turn the meeting over to our
Vice Chair, Diane Fellmen, to lead us in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
Diane Fellman: We don't have a flag, but could you all please
join me from wherever you are.
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.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you. Given that the fact
we're trying to integrate an Internet time lag, I thought
that actually went very well. Now, I'm gonna turn
the meeting over to Jamie. She's going to do a brief
safety moment and meeting access commentary. Jamie?
Jamie Ormand: Thank you, Chair Edwards. This is usually at the time
that we go over safety exits, locations of bathrooms.
Instead, let's please take a moment to look around
our current locations and consider our own safety options
right now. Additionally, I want to acknowledge Chair
Edwards for directing us to explore how to make today's
Board meeting into a virtual meeting. The conversation
started around Thursday, March 12. Even before discussions
of shelter in place. So we set out on a path to
figure out how to get this done, and I really credit
Chair Edwards's decisiveness with the outcome that we are
among the first virtual public meetings at the CPUC. Thank
you. We're doing our best to make this virtual meeting
as accessible as possible. All of the information about
this meeting could be found on the CPUC's Wildfire
Safety Advisory Board website. Again,
www.cpuc.ca.gov/wsab
You can look and find all of the documents linked to the website
that we're going to be discussing today. These documents
include the minutes from the March 11th meeting, the
agenda for today, the draft recommendations on the
2020 Utility Wildfire Mitigation plan, and the updated
recommendations that have some minor additions related
to the COVID-19 pandemic. And today's PowerPoint
presentation that is running alongside this meeting.
So this has been your brief safety moment, and thank you.
I'm gonna turn the meeting back to Chair Edwards.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you, Safety Advisor Ormand, I appreciate that.
All right, let's start by going over today's meeting agenda.
We're gonna open, obviously, with public comment in just
a moment. If you like, please press *1 in your
phone to get in the queue. We're then going to discuss the
meeting minutes from March 11. Then there's
gonna be a presentation by the Wildfire Safety Division.
Following that, we will be discussing the Wildfire Safety Advisory
Board 2020 Wildfire Mitigation recommendations. This
agenda is obviously a significant part of today's meeting.
We're gonna fit in a stretch break at the end of that,
and then, we're gonna have a presentation by representatives
of the publicly owned utilities, a discussion of the
Board next step, and then adjourn the meeting. So we're
going to start today with public comment. Please be
patient. It is very important to us that we provided the
maximum amount of access points to be able for people
to participate. But do be patient with our ability
to integrate and understand those comments. So let's
get started. First, I'd like to check the Wildfire Safety Advisory
Board email box. Catherine Stockton, we have any emails?
Catherine Stockton: Hi, this is Catherine. We do not have any email that
was, we received. We received quite a bit of
emails, comments to the Board recommendations, and
we will discuss those later during the meeting,
but we have not received any emails for this public
comment period.
Marcy Edwards: All right. So to clarify, the information
that we received in advance, we densure that it was publicly
posted. Correct?
Catherine Stockton: It will be available after today's meeting.
Marcy Edwards: Alright. Thank you. All
right, I'm gonna check the chat box. Jack
Chang, do we have any comments in the chat box?
Jack Chang: Hi, this is
Jack Chang. We do not have any comments so far in
the chat box. Thank you.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you so much. I'd like
to check with our telephone operator. Do we have any
public comments on the phone line? And if we do, please
ensure you keep your comments down to three minutes,
or you're gonna be here through cocktail hour. Anything?
Operator: There are no questions in queue at this time.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you very
much. Finally, I'd like to check with Public Advisor
Allison Brown. Have you received any public comments?
Allison Brown: I have not. Thank you.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you. I appreciate that.
All right, I'm gonna move into the next, the next
item. I believe that's Slide Nine in the minutes, and it
is, I'm sorry, in the agenda. I'm gonna move to the March 11 Board
meeting minutes. Again, they can be found on the Wildfire
Safety Advisory Board website. I am sure that the Board
members have all had an opportunity, do any of you
have edits or additions after your review?
Seeing none, I would ask for a motion to approve the
minutes of March 11th.
Ralph Armstrong: I--
Marcy Edwards: I didn't--
Oh, God, you guys, you're so fast. I couldn't see who
did it.
Thank you, Ralph. It's been moved by Member Ralph Armstrong.
Do I have a second?
Alexandra Syphard: I second
Marcy Edwards: Second by Alexandera Seaheart. And Board Member
Porter, I saw your lips moving, but I didn't hear you.
So let's make sure you can effect, you can communicate
with us. All right, all in favor, say aye.
All: Aye
Marcy Edwards: Any opposition?
All right. So the minutes are approved as diseminated.
Okay, now, we're looking at a slide 10. First, again,
and I know it's repetitive, but I don't think many
people realize the Wildfire Safety Division was created
literally out of nothing, and they hit the ground running.
And they have done, to date, a amazing job, and so are
privileged to have them make a presentation here today.
I am going to turn the meeting over to the Wildfire
Safety Division's Melissa Senser and Christopher
Meyer. And Operator, could you umute the phone lines for
Miss Senser and Mr Meyer.
And please let me know, both of you, when you are connected.
So I can hear you.
Melissa Senser: This is Melissa. Can you hear me?
Marcy Edwards: Excellent.
How about you?
I don't know where Mr Meyer went.
Melissa Senser: Christopher, are you on?
Okay, Well, I can go ahead and get started.
Marcy Edwards: Perfect
Perfect.
Melissa Senser: I know I saw him on earlier.
So, hopefully, he'll be able to come through in
a moment. But thank you for handing this
over to us to give an opportunity to give an update
on where things are today. First, I want to start by saying
thank you very much to the Board for
the input that was put out in draft form
on April 2nd. In the terms of the Board recommendation.
We have read those and digested those. The Evaluation
team has read and digested those. And we're looking
forward to hearing where those recommendations move
today. In terms of the feedback that you all received
from various members of the public. We also read the
comments that you all received from members of the
public and are looking forward to receiving the
final input from the Board on the 2020 Wildfire Mitigation
plans that we are currently in the process of evaluating.
That's the main thing I wanted to say, and then,
as far as an update as to where we are today, we
are well in our review process, same as we were before
but much further along. We had a large group of subject
matter experts, both from the Public Utilities Commission
and from CalFire, who have been working diligently,
almost around the clock, to provide an evaluation
of the various aspects of the Wildfire Mitigation plans.
And we also have a team of writers who are also incredibly
dedicated and working very hard to put together the
resolutions and dispositions, essentially, on those Wildfire
Mitigation plans. In consideration of the plans, we're
looking at the valuations from our subject matter experts
as well as comments from the Board, comments that we
received from stakeholders which included organizations
that are usually parties to proceedings, as well as members
of the public, and we receive those on April 7th.
And then we'll have reply comments from the utilities
that we will receive on April 16th, tomorrow, and all
of that is coming together to inform our analysis,
which is still on schedule to be released on May 7th.
And that where we are today
as far as the Wildfire Mitigation plans.
Marcy Edwards: Were we able
to locate Christopher Meyer?
Christopher Meyer: Yes, I'm here. They've unmuted me.
Marcy Edwards: And what do you have necessarily to add that, Jeff. I'm
sorry, Chris. I know a Jeff Meyer.
Christopher Meyer: Basically, we've been following with rapt attention
all the work Melissa and her team have been doing
to review the plan, and in a parallel path in getting
ready to get out into the field and do compliance. Both
on those 2020 plans but also getting out there and working
on doing compliance on what they're doing for the 2019
plans so that we're ready to go for the upcoming fire
season. So right now, what my team has been working on is
drafting the criteria for the independent evaluator.
It was delayed a little bit by the COVID-19 and
reprioritization of staff, but we've just put it in for
internal review for the process that we talked about
the last meeting and get that out for a solicitation.
We're also, we've been reviewing data responses
from PG&E on our review of their 2019 compliance
report, and we're on schedule to have our draft review
completed by the end of April. And then, once that
goes through division and legal review, then that
will get published for public viewing. We're
also, we're starting to review of Edison and SDG&E
2019 compliance reports, and we're focusing
on the resolving noncompliant areas that they identified.
So the IOUs self identified where they didn't meet
the expectations in those plans. And we're working
to complete those reviews by July. And one thing we will
be focused on addressing and correcting the issues
they identified as not having reached their goals
in the 2019 plan. Also, staff, we build a standard
operating procedure for field inspections to get the
staff out on the field. And in light of COVID, we put
out a separate standard operating procedure for safe field
work during our current situation. Just to give you a
very high level idea. That's just our staff, making
sure that they're keeping well in excess of the normal
social distancing and really avoiding confined spaces,
common areas while still being able to provide the oversight
required by expectations. And we're, in light
of the fact that there could be changes in the termination
of, you know, whether it's safe or not to go in the
field, we've been developing fallback methodologies
for performing audits of the IOU compliance with their
Wildfire Mitigation Plans if field inspections are
not possible. These would, you know, be daily, weekly inspection
reports from IOUs and their contractors. Yes, you
could get access to those. Real time, or at least near
real time video or photo documentation from those IOU contractors,
so we can see what being performed and have appropriate
dialogues with them on any questions we have. And then
data requests, either formal or informal and regular WEBEX
meetings with the IOUs to address any questions we
have on these ongoing wildfire mitigation work.
Those are, that's sort of our backup plan, so that
we are not sitting idle while the COVID has sort of
changed our normal procedures. We are also working closely
with the Boston Consulting Group on finalizing the
complaince plan and working to get sort of the best
GIS capabilities for our team, so
we can have the right information to make good decisions
on how to allocate our resources. And then, the
thing that's final would be finalizing our contract
for our compliance assurance contractor and working to
get them, you know, going on both their risk analysis
work and them getting their experts out in the field,
understanding that there experts would be under the
same protocols as ours for operating safely in a
COVID-19 environment. So that's just a quick
overview of what we're working on and I'm available for
any questions.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you, Mr Meyer. We appreciate that.
I am interested in entertaining any questions from
the Board Members they may have with respect to that
last presentation. You can either tell me through chat
for just raise your hand cause I can see all of you
at the moment.
I thought it was very well thought out. I thought their
fallback plans were were certainly adequate. I myself
don't have any questions, but I do want to make sure
that any of you who have an interest in getting an
oar in the water have a chance.
All right, I would like to thank both Ms. Senser
and Mr Meyer for their information. The
Wildfire Safety division is, in fact, agency that is in
control of a a lot of this, and their willingness to think past,
you know, the the older procedures, their willingness
to entertain the new thoughts. I have been very impressed
with them to date. So, that's my my two cents. Alright,
thank you both. You can probably drop off
at this point. Unless you're just vehemently interested
in listening to the rest of our meeting, at which point
you're certainly welcome.
Christopher Meyer: Thank you very much.
Melissa Senser: Thank you.
Marcy Edwards: Thank You
Moving to slide 12, we get into the topic that
is basically the heart of our meeting. We're going
to discuss the draft Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
2020 Wildfire Mitigation plan. And we put together
these recommendations on the plans developed by
the utilities pursuant to the requirements in Senate
Bill 1054. We didn't have some discussion, debate
about this earlier. I personally, and I am guided by
the Board, do not see a benefit in having the investor
owneds resubmit for 2020. I think the barn door has generally
closed. I think they can use our feedback on 2020 to
help inform 2021, but again, that is simply
my opinion, not the opinion of the group. So all
right, we are, let me see, slide 12. The Draft 2020 Wildfire
Mitigation plan recommendations can be found posted
on the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website. We
are going to, oh, good. I love the fact that state has
a lot of public comments, but oh my goodness.
Okay, we're gonna do public comments, one more time,
to make sure we have captured the thoughts of the audience.
So, let's get started again. Catherine. I'm sorry,
Advisor Stockton, do you have any email communication with
respect to this item?
Catherine Stockton: One moment.
No, we have not received any emails at this time.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you. I'm going to check
the chat box. Jack Chang? We have anything?
Jack Chang: We do not have any comments in the chatbox. Thank you
Marcy Edwards: Thank you.
I'd like to check with our telephone operator. We have any
public comment on the phone lines?
Operator: There are no public comments
on the line at this time.
Marcy Edwards: I appreciate that. And finally
like to check the public advisor, Allison Brown. Have
you received any public comments?
Allison Brown: I have not received a public comment at this time.
Marcy Edwards: I appreciate that. I will, again, notice for the public
the high level of interest by this Board on receiving
and integrating your feedback. So it is very important
to us. We are doing the business of the state, and
these people are here to serve you. So I want to ensure
that you feel comfortable in providing comments in
whatever framework works for you.
Okay, so now I'd like to give our Board Members the
opportunity to provide their comments.
Oh, good. I'm missing a page. That'll be fun. Okay.
Let me see here. Okay. Before we get into a more general
discussion, I would first like to call on our vice chair,
Ms. Fellman, and I would like to hear what she has to
say with respect to the overall recommendations. Vice Chair?
Diane Fellman: Thank you, Chair.
I just want to confirm that I'm audible?
Marcy Edwards: I can hear you.
Diane Fellman: Thank you.
I want to thank all the Board Members
and our advisors in helping us get to this point. I
add my thanks to the sentiments already expressed by
Chair Edwards and also underscore that we have produced
this set of recommendations under unprecedented,
I mean, no one, everyone uses that word, conditions, and
we were able to deliver on schedule. We aimed, in this
round, to put forth recommendations that were concise
and specific, so we organized around the 10 categories
that are being used by the Wildfire Safety Division
in its analysis, and we developed our 11 recommendations
under a very short turnaround times. We appreciate, again,
I'm echoing the thanks from Chair Edwards, the comments
from all the stakeholders. We've had a chance to look
at those, and we will consider those comments carefully
in our process for these recommendations as well as
to the extent they inform what we're going to be doing
on the 2021 WMP guidelines. One area that I want to
underscore is the integral role of communities and
communication between the communities and the IOUs
to the success of specific mitigation endeavors.
And this is something that, as we've heard, the Commission
is already, the Public Utilities Commission and the
other key agencies, are already working on, and we want
to make sure the Board, in our recommendation, that
those efforts are visible to all stakeholders and consolidated
in a way that is very concise in the WMP to increase
efficiency and avoid duplication. So again, I
look forward to continuing to work on this process,
and I appreciate all the support that we've been given
by the Board Members, by their advisors, and by all the stakeholders.
Thank you.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you, Vice Chair. And while I said it earlier,
I will get underscore your contributions have been
amazing and significant, and I'm personally appreciative,
and I'm sure the public is as well. That having been
said, Board Member Porter, is there anything you would
like to stay with respect ro this?
Porter: Yes, I actually would.
Just like Vice Chair Fellman mentioned, this was a
strong effort by this Board and to help articulate
our recommendations, our staff. Jamie Ormond and
Catherine Stockton are wonderful, and they helped
us to bring alive what we were truly trying to communicate,
which in the WMPs for 2020, this is entry level.
And we want many of those public comments and those
stakeholders to understand that there has to
be a place where we jump off, and we bring together
a one-mindedness for all of the IOU's. It's important.
They may want to consider themselves different, which
is, you know, proprietary, how the sausage is made.
But the real threat is how the sausage is eaten, which
is wildfires.
We really have to have a concerted effort in finding
the commonalities in the threat that we face,
they face, and start finding best practices. And I believe
with this group of conscious, very intelligent and
like-minded individuals, I think we found, in our first
set of recommendations, a really good jump off point
or starting point for the IOUS and for the Wildfire
Safety Division to help recommend and implement.
Marcy Edwards: Board Member Porter, I
can do nothing but wholeheartedly endorse
your comments and thank you for them. I would like
to acknowledge Board Member John Mader.
John Mader: All right, thank you, Chairman Edwards. So first
off, I want to just say that I want to acknowledge the
tremendous work of the Wildfire Safety division in
the creation of the 2020 Wildfire Mitigation plans
guidelines.
Just the fact that they are a common platform that
was needed so that it was possible to compare and contrast
the different wildfire mitigation plans, and being
able to determine deficiencies and best practices
much more efficiently. Also, the fact that they provide
a lot of technical detail and areas to look towards
wildfire risk reduction.
And that that's been a common guidance across the
three IOUs, been very helpful. And I gotta say that if
you compare the 2019 Wildfire Mitigation plans to the
2020 Wildfire Mitigation plans, you definitely see
a marked increase in the quality of those plans. Now,
there's obviously room for improvement. We can always
make improvements. And when looking at the 2020
Wildfire Mitigation plans, I primarily focused in on
risk and efficiency, the criteria for hardening
during potential PSPS events, and the outsource allocation.
And the reason I did that is because when you're looking
at wildfire risk reduction, I distinguish between wildfire
risk reduction and catastrophic wildfire risks reduction.
All wildfires are bad. We don't want to have any wildfire
that could be prevented. But the reason why
we're here and we're going to this effort is because
of catastrophic wildfires and the need to reduce the
risk of those events. And the most determinative factor
for catastrophic wildfires are high wind events. Now,
the WMPs have a lot of detail about how to reduce
the risk of wildfires, but primarily, the way that we
can, that the WMP reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfires is through PSPS events. That is because of
a number of factors. Absent of analysis of vegetation
management, enhanced maintenance, and hardening
techniques to determine the, quantitatively, the reduction
in wildfire risk. It's hard to leave in operation
potential facilities that could lead to the risk of
wildfires. So therefore, the main tool, absent hardening,
which, I mean, absent undergrounding which is cost and
time prohibitive is the PSPS events. That's why, when
I was looking at the wildfire mitigation plans, I looked
to make recommendations to include PSPS, not just as
a solution, but as an acknowledgement that, as a solution
to the reduction of wildfire risk, it also introduces something
that's undesirable, which is the absence of power
for IOU's customers. That itself is a risk. And
I looked to develop recommendations to incorporate
that risk into risk spend deficiency so that,
but in order to do that, you've got a look at what
kind of risk reduction are you getting from your different
efforts, so that you can not only determine the reduction
in wildfire risk, but also possibly being able to avoid
PSPS events because of the ability of the
IOU to reduce the risk of wildfires through different
hardening techniques or maintenance techniques. But include those into
the risk spend deficiency. And then, look at resource
allocation. You know, this is going to be likely a
decades long effort to reduce the risk of wildfire
through the state. You just cannot invent enough material
or lineman or designers to, overnight, to be able to
transform your system, which means that you're going
to have to start allocating resources to be able to
get the most bang for your buck. The most ability to both
reduce wildfires and to be able to avoid the need
for PSPS in areas that affect the customers the most.
So, now, 2020 as Chair Edwards, as you pointed out, that
the cows are out and the barn door is closed, but
I think that what this Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
will be looking is towards advisoring the Wildfire
Safety Division as they create their 2021 Wildfire
Mitigation plan guidelines to be able to introduce
PSPS, not just as a solution, but also having its own
risk and ways to mitigate those risks.
Marcy Edwards: I find that very insightful,
Board Member Maynbard. I truly do.
Anything you need to say as a close?
John Mader: Well, you know, like I said, there's gonna be a decades
long effort. And if we can come up with the type of
resource allocation and the kind of criteria to begin
to reduce risk, wildfire risk, and to be able to leave
people in power and were able to concentrate it in
say specific strategic areas. Then when there is a
PSPS event, say, in a county like Amador
County. And if enough hardening and extra mitigation
efforts are done, you could potentially be able to
see a situation where you'll be able to leave the county
chair in power during the PSPS events. And the tolerance for
the population if we have to go to a PSPS event is
a lot different than if you're able to go 20 minutes over
and go to the grocery store and get your gas. Those
kind of things. Then if you have to drive two hours out
of the high fire threat district area.
And that's kind of what I'm looking, hoping that we
see, that kind of resource allocation is
driven by the 2021 Wildfire Mitigation Plan guidelines.
Marcy Edwards: I hear you and it's very much appreciated.
If it's all right with the Board, I'd like
to move on to Board Member Armstrong.
Ralph Armstrong: Yes. Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair Fellman.
And regular Board Members. You know, I just want to
echo, in an effort not to sound like a broken record
and repeat what everybody else has already said.
This is one of the things as you, further down the list,
when you get to comment,
you know, some of the things that you wanted to say
were brought up, so I'll try to keep it kind of short.
You know, I do need to echo, you know, as I was
trying to prepare my comments, just thinking about,
you know, all the people that are out there dealing
with the virus. The doctors, the first responders,
the everybody that you mentioned Chair Edwards at
the beginning, and including the people working
in the energy sector, the men and women that are out
in the, you know, in the field working on maintenance,
wildfire hardening projects, the vegetation management,
enhance vegetation management. That work is continuing
to go on right now to,
you know, hopefully get ahead of this year's
fire season. Just like this pandemic,
a lot of decisions are made by, you know, great
leadership in this state. The governor has made
some some bold moves that have not gone unnoticed all
the way to Washington, D. C. And you could see the
comments coming all the way from the President on what
a great job dealing with this crisis. And I'd like
to compare that it doesn't take much to not find some
type of parallels into wildfire issues in
the state of California. You know, we've got issues
here, especially as they pertain to utility assets
and trying to find ways to mitigate those. A lot
of decisions made with this pandemic were not popular
decisions, but they save lives. And I like to think
the same way with some of the wildfire mitigation
plans. They may not be popular, but, you know, given
the time frame the utilities had to put these things
together.
We've got to believe that they are, as well, saving lives.
So just looking at everything from a realistic
standpoint, reading the thousands of hundreds of pages,
thousands of pages of wildfire mitigation plans, and
trying to
get the comments together, recommendations together,
in the time frame that we had, given the circumstances
we had, I think the Board had done a outstanding
job, like you mentioned at the beginning that it started
out as a monthly meeting and in some cases, with the
Bagley-Keene stuff, we're meeting on a regular basis to
try to get some recommendations. You know, as mentioned
in my bio, before, I'm a general lineman by trade. I'm
the guy that was used to being out in the field
and, you know, working on the lines, you know, cutting trees,
doing all that type of stuff that many of the workers are
doing. So it doesn't take much to find out which recommendations
have my fingerprints on them. Those are the types of things
that I focused on and trying to find ways to,
you know, you look at what's going on, how do you analyze
what's going on? How do you make things better? But
I do need to point out that the Board's been great
to work with. You know, in the small Bagley-Keene groups
that I have worked with, you know, there's 6 other professionals
that are on this Board that have spent their lives
dealing with issues related to this cause.
And it's opened my eyes to a lot. Again, mentioned
I'm the guy that deals with strictly, you know, people
working in the field, doing that work myself, and looking
at things from the different lens and understanding
where other Board Members are coming from in their analysis
of things is very helpful. So, you know, I just like,
in closing, I'd like to say that I look forward to
the, you know, continuing to work with this Board and
learning, and I encourage everybody else, when they're
analyzing the recommendations, try to look at 'em from
all different aspects.
That should do it.
Marcy Edwards: Board Member Armstrong, I will just close that with
a couple comments. The involvement of people who
have familiarity in the field is is invaluable. And
so I really appreciate your commentary, your review
of the suggestions, your feedback, and I just simply
want to say thank you for that.
All right, Board Member Jessica Locke. The floor
is yours.
Locke: Thank you, Chair Edwards. Can you all hear me?
Marcy Edwards: Yes.
Locke: Great. I am also gonna be a little redundant and
echo that I wanted to recognize the Wildfire Safety
division and commend them on all of the outstanding
prior work in collaboration with Boston Consulting
Group to develop a framework and guidelines for the mitigation
plans. That was really an outstanding place for
us to start and really grateful for that. I also really
want to acknowledge personally, again, Jamie Ormond and
and Catherine Stockton in for guiding us through this process
and ingesting our comments and putting our Board
together on a cohesive report with Bagley-Keene limitations
and guidelines that we have to adhere to. So thank
you all very much for that. With regard to the recommendations,
I want to make a few comments about some comments
that I made regarding establishing methods of the scientific
process, including handling data and sharing technology.
The concept of making data standardized and open for
processes like this for regulation and for experimenting
with technology and growing the use of emerging technology
is a process that I don't think anyone in the world
has mastered. So in making, in the time frame that we
had and making the recommendations that I did in collaboration
with my Board Members and our Bagley-Keene groups, we
made somewhat aspirational and high level comments
in order to make noted what we thought was important.
We didn't make very specific comments about how each
of the IOUs was addressing using different ways.
So I wanted to also comments that I've read thoroughly
the comments from the IOUs on our recommendations,
and I think they're very helpful for creating a framework
for addressing these issues and the challenges that
that the state has in regulatory and
the process of moving the needle forward and making
the state safer. So I look forward to working with
everybody in that process. I think that there are a
lot of challenges here and the way forward
is collaboration and transparency. And I think that
those are all my comments.
Thank you. Board Member
Locke. I really resonate very strongly with your interest.
Sometimes the existing bureaucracy and procedures,
etcetera, have the tendency to chill it. I'm thinking
of, like, the critical infrastructure protection protocol.
I know the IOUs have market interest, which you know
the publics don't necessarily have. But I wrestle
with that as well and we should take our time
and be very thoughtful moving forward, particularly
on 2021 and try to find a balance point that we can recommend.
Because I do think your suggestions are so meritorious,
I think it's just a matter of figuring out how to make
it happen.
Locke: Exactly. Yeah.
Thank you. I agree that
the, you know, it's about how the sausage is made and
the challenges of how we eat it. As Board Member Porter pointed
out. So yeah, you know, I want to just repeat that
our recommendations in this 2020 plan really didn't
dive into the complexity of how this all can be done.
And we're gonna take that all very seriously in
2021 and beyond.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you. I very much appreciate that. Board Member
Alex Seaheart. Am I pronouncing your last name correctly?
Alexandra Syphard: Syphard.
Marcy Edwards: All right, please. Go ahead.
Alexandra Syphard: Thank you. Thank you. Chair Edwards
and thank you to the Board Members. As Ralph was
saying, it's been a really interesting learning experience.
And so I guess what I want to start off by
saying is that I'm impressed with the amount of effort
that has already gone into the wildfire mitigation
plans. It's clear to me that the utilities are starting
to take wildfire safety seriously. I think progress
has been made, particularly through technological developments
and using data to inform risk assessment and situational
awareness. And I think that if this kind of work
continues for the next 10 years or to, the state of
California could become an example of how utility companies
aren't seen just as the cause of wildfire problems,
but I think that there's the potential for them to
play a leadership role in facilitating wildfire awareness
and safety in the future. So as many of you know, I'm
a research scientist. I've spent more than two decades
studying wildfire science and ecology, vegetation,
dynamic plant ecology, climate change, and myself, I've
done a lot of fire modeling and mapping of wildfire
patterns and trends. And so the recommendations that
I contributed to, so far, have come from this scientific
perspective, and I guess what I wanted to say is that
from a scientific perspective, I think it's important
to remember that wildfire is very complex. It results
from a large number of both human and environmental
influences and these different drivers of wildfire
and their relative effects on fire behavior and fire
safety vary dramatically across the diverse regions
of California. So in terms of management and mitigation
efforts, one size often doesn't fit all, and what often works
in some regions doesn't work in others or could
even have an opposite effect. And so that's why I continue
to iterate why science has to be an integral part
of the mitigation process, and even in the wildfire
science community, there's a lot of uncertainty and
even debate about when and where fires are most likely
to a occur, when and where they do the most damage, or
even when they do the most good in an ecological sense. There
are dozens of types of fire models used for dozens
of objectives, and are there dozens more being developed
right now. And so the good news is that we're learning
a lot in recent years about wildfire, particularly
in California. But the word of caution I also
have is that there's a lot more to learn, and this
should be reflected in our model assumptions and in
the data.
To quote what a lot of us modelers often say is
"all models are wrong, but some are more wrong than others."
And so I think that models need to continually be vetted.
So instead of reiterating three details of the recommendations,
I, my name main message here is to just sort of reinforce the
overarching belief that the plan should include
scientific oversight and peer review and transparency,
and that room is allowed to adjust as new scientific
developments unfold. And, as Jessica and others have said,
how this is implemented is something that still needs
to really be discussed and negotiated. Obviously,
it needs to be feasible and it needs to be reasonable.
But I think also trying to oversight is the most effective
way to ensure that actions performed are actually doing
what they're intended to do in the most efficient way
possible. So one idea might be a team of science advisors,
but it doesn't make sense to invest in something that
ultimately does not work or even could have the
opposite of the effect that was intended. A lot of
times we call this the Law of Unintended Consequences,
and some of the things I pointed out have to do
with just providing the peer review and input to avoid
some of these. For example, reducing fuel volume
which reduces fire intensity, but the unintended consequence
of increasing perhaps fuel flammability through refined
fuel. So, in summary, my plan were basically peer reviewing
of modelling approaches, vegetation management plans,
ensuring data quality and interpretation analysis
and prioritization, and that information data are validated
and updated on a regular basis, and that not
every single piece of information needs to be revealed, but
that the models and data are transparent enough to
allow sufficient verification so that at least an
oversight is provided that they're being used appropriately.
And, of course, I think collaboration across all the
utilities and within the scientific community could
be really beneficial. And I think that, in a broad way,
this could set the stage for success in the future. So
that's my comment.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you, Board Member. Looking at the faces
of the balance of the team as they nod when you are
when you were talking is very critical, and I think
your interpretation can, in fact, I think we can make
it happen. It may need NDAs. Remember, we're talking
about profit potential agencies against public,
I mean, there's a lot of different players, but I think
there should be a space, within the scientific sector,
that all of this gets integrated and analyze. I very
much appreciate, appreciate that feedback. I think
that's useful. I am the close, and I don't, well, let
me rephrase it. In the 90s, I testified before
FERC, and I said, I am not a lawyer, an engineer, a marketer.
I am simply a system operator, and I will tell you what
some of your policies under consideration, I will
tell you what the impacts are. And I dont smacked around
quite a bit for that. But nonetheless, my
point is that we are the vanguard. We are independent
source of thoughts and recommendations to not only
the Wildfire Safety Division, but also the investor owned
and also the publicly owned utilities. And I very
much appreciate the creative independence that each of
you brings to the table. I mean it is
amazing to me.
Okay, so did anyone have any reaction or expanded
commentary to the COVID-19 aspects we added for the
recommendation? Anyone have any problems with that?
I did not play. If you did, then we need to talk
about it.
No? Okay?
Jamie, do I need to do the entire floor-based public comment
things right here? It says public comment in my notes,
but I want to make sure I'm doing what I'm supposed to
do.
Jamie Ormand: I'm looking
Marcy Edwards: Under slide 14, it's got public comments. Do I need
to solicit input from all of the investors or...?
Jamie Ormand: I don't believe so because you asked for public comment
before the Board began speaking. The public has had
an opportunity to provide public comment on this item.
Marcy Edwards: All right. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Okay. We have talked a lot about these recommendations
We have talked a significant amount about they're intended,
in part, to inform both the investor-owned and the public utilities.
They already tended to be indicative of 2021, albeit,
we will obviously comment on 2021. We have a lot
of expanded thoughts. We were in a very compressed time frame
for 2020. And again, I appreciate the work on the Board's behalf
to fit into from a very small time frame. I
would entertain a vote at present on the current recommendation.
Diane Fellman: I'll moved the current recommendations.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you, Vice Chair.
Do I have a second?
Unknown1: I will.
With the addition as posted.
Marcy Edwards: I didn't see the second. Could you tell me again.
I thought I heard a second. Well, Board Member Porter
is brave. Thank you very much.
Porter: Member Porter seconds
the recommendation.
The motion, I mean.
Marcy Edwards: I appreciate that. All those in favor?
I'm sorry. Legal now tells me I need
a roll call. Excuse me. Board Member
Syphard? Did I screw it up again?
Alexandra Syphard: No, you got it. Aye.
Marcy Edwards: Yay or nay?
I have to do a roll call, Alex, so give me a yay or nay.
I'll come back. We're probably having communication difficulties.
Board Member Porter, yay or nay?
Porter: Yay.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you.
Marcy Edwards: Board Member Block?
Block: Yay.
Marcy Edwards: Board Member Mader?
John Mader: Yay.
Marcy Edwards: Board Member Armstrong?
Ralph Armstrong: Yay.
Marcy Edwards: Vice Chair Fellman moved
originally. Board Member Alexandra. Yay or Nay?
Alexandra Syphard: Yay.
and sorry for the mix up.
Marcy Edwards: No,
believe me. I believe we're doing stellar.
Given the potential for, I mean Oh, no, we're knocking it out. All
right, all right. I believe I have a uniform majority
on that. And with that, even though Jamie, with your
approval, people maybe need a bit of a stretch break.
even though we're a little ahead of schedule.
Okay. 10 minutes, 10 minutes. Leave. Reconnect.
Get back here within 10 minutes and we'll continue
the business of the Board.
Jamie Ormand: Okay, so it is 2:01. We are now on a
10 minute stretch break. I recommend that everybody
who is at their computer right now stand up, allow
the blood flow through the body and stretch. We do
this at the Commission in all of our meeting. The stretch
break is a very important part. When you sit down the
blood pools, we want to get it back flowing through
the body.
Unknown1: If you're going to the bathroom with ear
buds,
mute your phone.
Jamie Ormand: We will reconvene here and begin promptly
at 2:11. So continue stretching. Grab your water. We
will be right back.
Marcy Edwards: Recommence our meeting. We are going to do so
with a presentation by the publicly owned utilities. In the interest
of full disclosure you need to know that I am,
in fact, for 40 years, a representative of the municipal community.
The (unclear) I have always had a foot
in the investor-owned because I do understand
their interests and their focus, and it's important
that we all coexist. So prior to opening the phone
line for the municipal presentation, I have a couple
of clarifying comments, and my choice was to make them
myself rather than them be the basis of the presentation
because I wanted the Munies to move past
anything that looks like a defensive strategy and
embrace their lessons learned, and they're a new technology
and things that we really need to talk about. So that
having been said, a few clarifying coming before the
publicly owned utility presentation starts.
First, I'm sure most people are aware they are not jurisdictional
to the CPUC but to their own local political government.
They serve communities, policy makers, and are a public service
to their ratepayers. Because they have no stock holders, and it's
something to bear in mind. And as such cost containment,
wildfire risk mitigation remaining has
critical imperative to POUs.
However, this devestation provided the direction for this
Board to give advisory input and technical expertise
to publicly owned utilities with the objective of reducing
wildfire related, recent related, issues associated
with a (unclear), and in my experience here recently, the
public owned utilities have stepped up to actively participate,
learn, as well as shared her experience to date. One last
observation, and excuse me if these numbers are not exact,
but I think it's important to
help maintain context. Think of the following in terms of wildfire exposure.
PG&E has a service territory of over 70,000 square
miles. Edison, over 50,000 square miles. The largest
publicly owned utility in California has a service
territory of 465 square miles, with some additional
up in the (unclear). And many of the smaller agency can be measured
under 50 square miles, some under 10. My point is this:
difference in distribution systems,
topography, fire explosion, community connection oversight.
We should never err on the fact of a one size fits
all solution, a fact that was echoed by some of the Board Members
earlier. In fact, topography really is a primary differentiator.
We have some agencies in the municipal community
that serve all Commercial and Industrial
loads with no risk of wildfire. Some have no forested areas
at all. I very much appreciate members of the public
owned community being available to present today, ultimately
considering and implement the advice of the Board as to what
might further the integrated into their operations
and planning, and as always, I deply appreciate the thoughtful advice
being developed by this Board in the best interests, really,
of the state overall. With that, if I could ask the
operator to make sure that Ryan Wilbur and Scott Tomchevsky
are unmuted, and if I could bring their presentation
up on the screen.
Jamie, can you get that.
Okay.
All right. We're still like frozen in place.
Here we go. We have the presentation. Operator, have
you a unmuted them?
Scott, Ryan, do you hear me?
Scott: We can. Can you hear us?
Marcy Edwards: Yes, take
it.
Scott: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Edwards, Vice Chair Fellman,
and the rest of the Board. We are pleased to
be able to have this important conversation with you
and give you some perspectives on what we do in the
POU community, and let me start off by offering
a word of thanks to my POU colleagues at the CMUA,
California's Municipal Utility Association. Southern California
Public Power Authority. LEDWP, SMUD, and as well as
my colleagues at NCPA and our 16 member organizations.
For this presentation and the work that we are collectively
doing. Hopefully, in the next 15, 20 minutes, you'll
get a feel for some of the things that we are doing
across the POUcommunity. And, as Marcy had indicated,
there is a wide divergence of where we are, large size,
and so we will not be able to touch on everything.
Of course, obviously, for all 40 POUs. But we will
provide you a sample here. So with that said, I think
if there's one take away here as you look at our plans
and develop recommendations, I trust you'll conclude
that our plans are robust and they take full advantage
of our ability to closely coordinate our efforts with
our local authorities, and our governing boards. That's
just a fundamental objective that we undertake
when we look at these things, and that's really the
seed of our success. So if you could go to the first
slide on that.
Marcy Edwards: Do you see it?
Scott: Not yet, I still see the title slides. If you can go
to slide 2.
Marcy Edwards: We are on introductions and presentation
overview.
Scott: Okay, so I'm gonna, unless I don't see
it, I'll assume it's on slide 2, so I can talk through
that. You'll see both Bryan and I are gonna get a present.
The objectives here really are just sort of providing
a broad brush on our wildfire mitigation plans. And, of
course, the relationship between what we provide with
our local communities. We'll also touch on some general
observations and focus on some of the technical considerations.
That's sort of the bulk of slide 2. So if you go
to slidethree,
you should see what's shown as POU overview.
Catherine Stockton: Hi, Scott.
This is Catherine. I just want to jump in real quick.
There's about a 30 seconds or more delay from what
is able to be seen on the WebEX. So you
could either wait or you could just continue forward.
Scott: Okay. Okay.
So we are, let me just wait until we get to slide 2.
This way, everyone can follow along as well.
Catherine Stockton: And was the numbering will be starting at,
you can see here. The intro is 17. Slide 18. That
we would like to posted up there for our
wonderful IT folks.
Scott: Thank you. So with slide 18 cause now it's
come up. And this just provides you, sort of,
the general framework for what we're looking at in
terms of the POU community. For those of you that aren't
too familiar with the municipal model. When you start
to look at where we are located throughout California,
we're all over the map on, and you'll see that here
with this particular map. When you take into consideration
the fire map, that heat map that we are all familiar
with, you'll see that we're located everywhere.
When it comes down to it. We are located in Tier 3.
We're located in Tier 2. We're located in Tier 1.
Each of those utilities that are in different
areas have different considerations. So when you look
at the fact that we cover about 25% of state's load
with LA and SMUD, basically, accounting for approximately
half of that load. There's a lot of activity that's
going on. Most of these systems are relatively
small. Marcy's made reference to the size. Our smallest
member is one square mile. So if you start looking
at it one square mile utility as opposed to a 70,000
square mile utility, there's probably different considerations
you would have. We also have different climate zones
that we're all in. There are members that are along
the coastal range, in the middle of the Central Valley,
in the High Sierra. Each of their governing boards,
whether they are a local municipality, a rural co-op,
or a district have a local governance structure where
these wildfire mitigation plans are reviewed and approved,
and we also have a process for how these are being
assessed by independent evaluators. Of course, that
process is going on in terms of the PUC. We've taken
steps to have evaluators available to review our plans
that we provided and that we will be providing to you.
The other thing that's important to note, and
you could turn the slide right now, so I can finish
my point, and then we'll get to the next slide as
I finish my point on on Slide 18. But many of our
utilities are transmission dependent utilities of
the state's IOUs. And so, to the extent that there
are power shut off issues, there are upstream considerations
that have a direct impact on some of the things that
our local utilities do at home. And they have
to take those things into consideration while they're
addressing the actions that they need to undertake.
Case in point, as the slide gets ready to turn to the
next one, during the Kincaid Fire, one of our members,
Fieldsburg, was dealing with power outages, evacuations,
and power shut outs, and the coordination of the effort
to deal with evacuating a community, working with shutoffs
to giving local police and fire the ability
to get communities safely evacuated as a fire was
moving was extremely important. And that is often
impacted by the upstream activities that happened with
public safety shutoffs. Very important to understand
that consideration. With slide 19,
just to give you a recap on our obligations. They're
slightly different than the IOUs, but
the basic objective is still the same. We were required
to have mitigation plans approved and or adopted by
January 1st. We are required to submit those to the
Safety Advisory Board by July, about a dozen of them
have submitted them already. We are required to
completely update those every three years, but we are
also required to do annual reviews of those. So it
doesn't necessarily give us a pass on the importance
of looking at these mitigation plans. But it allows
us to take a look at it and comprehensively update it.
And again, if you go to the next slide as I'm finishing
the points on it, that would be great. The plans itself
happen be evaluated independently, which is
extremely important.
I will note, as the slide gets ready to change, that
the mitigation, planning and practices are not new
to public utilities. We have taken those types of activities,
in conjunction with looking at safety within our local
communities, wildfires being one of them. So the efforts
of dealing with things like vegetation management and
all the things that we're doing, now, to aggressively
pursue wildfire prevention have been addressed, and they
are being addressed, and they continue to be coordinated,
and we continue to talk to our local police and fire
and CalFire and others and neighboring utilities and
our neighbouring IOUs as well. So I want to
make it clear that there is really, as much as there
may be a concern that there isn't conversation happening
amongst utilities across the state, when it comes to
us, there is an awful lot of conversation and it
is not tied to jurisdictional
definitions. We talk in many different areas.
In terms of general observations from our plans,
and then, after this alternate over to Bryan, to talk
about some of the technical considerations. What's
really important to keep in mind here is that, as much
as we might be different in terms of how we approach
the optimal solution for dealing with wildfire
prevention and mitigation, we have a common goal, and
it's really reducing wildfire risk. That is paramount
to everything that we do in this year. And
if you want to look at it from a technical standpoint,
it's sort of like linear programming where you sort
of have your objective and you have the optimal
solution that you're trying to deal with given the
various constraints we might have in our situations
here, whether it's geography, system design, community
situations, those things are all taken into consideration
as we approach the best possible solution. So, as an
example, if your if you're basically in the Bay Area
and you're running a port, you're not necessarily
gonna have those same Tier 3 issues that you
might have if you're in the High Sierras and dealing
with things. So to have both of those utilities deal
with the situation the same way would really
not be the most practical and prudent way to address
that. It really becomes the opportunity to try to find
the best solution for them. We do a deploy a wide range
of approaches. We have done some things traditionally.
We've talked about vegetation management. We maintain
our systems. We shut off the power when we have to.
And there's something that are really emerging in terms
of the technologies that we're talking about. The advanced
technologies, the camera, the, you know, all the stuff
we're dealing with, and also the emergence of strategy,
which is very different now than it was even four years
ago, when we started to go through these severe wildfire
season. We've learned a lot since 2015, and now, we're
aggressively all pursuing these strategies and trying
to find those best practices. So key to fully understanding
what the POU story is here is that there's no one solution.
And if anyone thinks there is, then that's probably
something that needs to be corrected just in terms
of thought processes. The commitment and the intent
to deal with the issue is the thing that's common towards
all of us. And there's a distinction between those.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Bryan, and
you can take over for the next few slides.
Unknown1: Hey, Bryan.
I'm going really have to talk to these people. Come
on. Where are you,
Bryan?
Are you muted? Are you think about it?
Jamie, see if you could find him.
Jamie Ormand: Operator has Bryan called in?
Operator: Do not see him, but in case you are on the line,
Bryan, and accidentally dialed in with the participant
passcode, please dial star-zero.
Marcy Edwards: I thought you tested this out with Bryan earlier today?
Scott: Yeah, we shared the call-in numbers. So we have all
of that information and we had a conversation a little while
ago about that.
Marcy Edwards: All right, let's see what happens.
Scott: Give him a couple of minutes. If I have to, I guess
I could, I have his talking points, so I could at least
fill in some of those gaps, though I wouldn't necessarily
do nearly as well justice as he would.
Marcy Edwards: You know, I get that. But we may have to start without
him if he can't connect.
Scott: Okay.
Bryan: Can you all hear me now? Hello? Hello?
Can you hear me now?
Marcy Edwards: That a boy. Good job.
Bryan: We back on. Yes. Okay. All right. Let me, just
reiterating what Scott has said, although we are very
different from the IOUs, the POUs have many
similarities. But we're also very different in between
each other. In regards to our service territory, our personnel,
terrain, and our transmission and distribution assets.
So, in the following slide, please remember, this is
a collective effort for many POUs, and not all of
what is presented applies to everyone of us. Okay. So
starting with vegetation management, let's start off
with one of the most effective programs used to protect
our system in the high fire threat area. That's our
vegetation management programs. The POUS incorporate
new clearance standards encompassing brush clearance,
tree trimming, weed abatement, and often go well beyond
GO 95, Rule 35 minimum requirements. We work in widened
right of ways and clearances. We have aggressive pruning
program. We have regular evaluations of all trees in
our transmission and distribution lines. We incorporate
extra midcycle inspections in the High Fire Threat
District, and that includes the removal of dead trees
which pose increased risks, even outside
of our area.
We're piloting new technologies that track the growth
in high risk areas, such as fixed wings and pull mounted
lidar cameras, as well as satellite-based
vegetation surveillance. Due to some limited resources,
we utilize both in-house and contracting qualified
line-clearance tree trimmers and actively pursue additional
funding to further accelerate our vegetation management
activities.
Could we go to the next slide?
Marcy Edwards: Hey Brian, can I ask a quick question?
It's a privilege of the chair, but well, I hear a lot
of feedback about Let's just cut down vegetation
as opposed to harden the system, as opposed to putting
in protected conductor. What would be POUs say
about that?
Bryan: You know, most of our, especially specific to
here in Los Angeles, most of our distribution
lines run along property lines. So they're running
along private property, right? Especially in our high
fire threat areas. Some of those communities, they
do have a lot of pressure on what we can and can't
do on their properties.
Marcy Edwards: Yeah, all right. Yeah,
Yeah. I'm
sketchy with that. What is your overall fire exposure
in LA? Like 10 to 15% of your territory?
Bryan: Yes, Anywhere
from 7 to 15%. Depending if you're talking the transmission
or distribution assets.
Marcy Edwards: We can talk offline about it then, but
there is a group of people who are very upset. Not
just you. With the IOUs as well about let's cut
down a damn tree rather than hardening system, rather
than putting in insulated conductor, rather than, and
so I think the POUs should be sensitive to
that observation and now I will shut up. Thank you.
Bryan: That's OK. And you know, some of the issues that
we go through is not all of our issues are right
in that right of way where the lines are. Especially
here with palm fronds. Palm fronds are one of our biggest
issues. They'll blow in the wind 30, 40, 100 feet and land
on our lines. So even without our vegetation management
program, hardening our system is still going to help
us out tremendously.
Marcy Edwards: Okay.
Bryan: Okay. So onto the next slide on deenergization.
Okay, so the bottom line, when the red flag
warning comes in or a notification from the weather
service comes in, and we're called to respond to an
increased threat, that's when we put our plans into
action. Most importantly is being able to have a full
understanding of our systems and where our biggest threat
areas are. Given the much smaller service territory
within Tier two and Tier three areas, the POUs
are able to utilize their protocols quite effectively.
Most POUs disabled automatically closing capabilities
within the high fire threat zones, either in field
deployed fault interrupters or through station equipment.
We take immediate measures to suspend non-essential
work and take extra precautions during any restoration
work within these areas. And a lot of the POUs are
affected by Public Safety Power Shutoffs from the larger
IOUs, but we only deenergize our lines in the
event of a disaster if it is deemed necessary based
on safety and reliability issues, whether it's a flood,
a mudslide, excessive wind, earthquake or a
wildfire, we coordinate with our local government agencies,
such as fire department, public works, emergency services,
as well as the community members, during these events
to share information and effectively deenergize where
needed to protect our system or for public safety. Considerations
are made for water pumping facilities, evacuation routes,
fueling stations
to assist police and fire during the disasters. We're
able to utilize our close communication in the local
command centers with other city agencies to effectively
observed developing weather, fuel status, and system
conditions in real time to get ahead of the hazards
and only de-energize where necessary.
Many of our designs include redundancies in our residential
systems that help to better isolate our problem areas
and keep the surrounding areas energized.
We can go to the next slide.
Like all utilities, most effective way to increase the
reliability of our system and mitigate hazards in the
high fire threat areas is to improve the condition of
our infrastructure. It starts with an intensive inspection
program specific to the Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas.
New and stronger materials are in constant development
and being implemented in key places. Replacing wood
poles with that ductile iron, steel, fiberglass poles not
only improves the wind loading capabilities but increases
the life span of the pole. Alternative pole materials
are more resistant to damage caused by insects,
woodpeckers, water intrusion, and such.
Wind loading calculations meet or exceed state requirements
are performed on all new pole installations.
The replacement bare wire conductor with insulated
conductor and increasing conductor spacing is a big
step in increasing the reliability in these areas.
Fibreglass crossed arms, wire spacers also increased
the rigidness of our structures and reduce the probability
of wires coming down due to external stresses. Avian
protection is also used in insulated covers to help mitigate
flash overs by birds, animals and Mylar balloons.
All right. From the slide 24.
Having a smaller service territory and a close relationship
with other city agencies, like the police and Fire department,
give us the opportunity to pilot innovative technologies
into our system and evaluate their effectiveness in wildfire
areas. Using both publicly shared wildfire cameras,
such as alert wildfire, as well as our own pilot systems
allow response teams to verify and confirm the location
of wildfires and integrate responses with local fire
departments.
Field deployed fault interrupters minimize their impact
to customer's help further sectionalize parts of our
circuit. Drone technology with infrared as well as
regular camera capabilities, also helped to identify
hot spot on circuit. As well as utilizing floor technology
during our detailed inspection cycles.
I mentioned before about the use of fixed wings and
pole mounted lidar systems, hyperspectral imaging,
satellite surveillance. These will help identify line
clearance and vegetation threats.
The advancement of distribution automation and line
sensing equipment. With that advancement, that analytics
have become an integral part of identifying problem
areas. As technology rapidly advances, our ability to
analyze data drastically improves our ability
to mitigate the hazards.
Slide 25.
One of the major thing, you know, actually, let
me go back. Not all lessons learned from these
that we're going to go through are from personal experience.
Right? This information sharing allows us to gain
the benefits of what has worked and what does not work
for some of its other agencies. One of the major things
that was learned from the past wildfires that even
the most thorough vegetation management plan may not
prevent branches from being blown into lines from an
untrimmed palm tree on private property 50 feet
away from our lines. They can still dislodge, blow
long distances, and wreak havoc on our systems. Covered
conductors and resilient construction materials is
critical in the high fire threat areas to help prevent
these hazards.
One of the improvements we also have is the training
of our employees to help ensure that key staff are
up to date on the techniques and procedures for working
in a fire threat area. A specific set of steps, techniques,
materials, and equipment used by employees in high
fire threat areas help reduce the possibilities of
accidents in these areas. We put many communication
protocols into community meetings alongside with our
counterparts from the police and fire department to
help educate the public to their responsibilities for
brush clearance, private tree trimming, as well as putting
in fire tolerant landscaping.
Even with the advanced technologies, the physical inspections
of poles, arms, lines, and equipment is critical to
mitigating our risks.
Slide 26.
One of the advantages to the open communication between
POUs is sharing information and best practices. Covered
conductors or tree wire, certainly nothing new to the
industry. But the advancement of the technology used
today has made tree wire a viable solution in a lot
of areas. The old tree wire that we've used that we
had in the systems for a long time, was heavy, required
a more robust construction technique, had reduced loading
capabilities, and was very difficult to work with. Today's
tree wire is essentially a stronger construction material
and a lighter installation available on these conductors
is becoming a great solution where other mitigating
measures are not possible.
Some of the other new emerging technologies is falling
wire or rapid earth detection. And this, essentially,
where we have the, it gives us the ability to adjust the
settings to a sensitivity that will detect
a fault on the line as it separates, and the line will
de-energize before it hits the ground.
So, these are just examples from one POU, and even though
it's proved highly successful for that POU,
it may not be viable for all POUs, but these
are just some of the issues that we talk through and some
of the best practices that are working for us.
Marcy Edwards: All right, Bryan, how many more pages in the presentation?
Marcy Edwards: This is it. So, just Scott's gonna go ahead and
wrap it up. We have one more.
Marcy Edwards: All right, do your one more.
Bryan: Okay. Yeah. And that's slide 27. And basically,
it's really final thoughts. And putting aside what's
the bullets that are on there, we understand that these
plans are going to continue to change and evolve over
time. This is really sort of an evolving process
where we are building on the experiences of previous
years, we're preparing for this year, we're refining
our efforts for 2021 and beyond. And we know that these things
are going to improve over time. One final note
on that is is you're noting the importance of collaboration,
and we talk amongst ourselves quite a bit. We talk
at all levels of our organizations. We do it within
our individual JPAs, within our trade association,
we do that at the federal level with our National Trade
Association. We get involved with the ESECC
at the federal level. And we do
talk to our counterparts with the investor-owneds and
our co-ops. This is not something that we do in a
vacuum and really appreciate the opportunity to kind
of provide some reflections on what we're doing today
and look forward to your input and continuing the conversation.
Marcy Edwards: Alright. Good job. I want to solicit the Board Members.
They may not all have come because, you know, it's
fairly new information for some, but I do want to hear,
I do want to hear what they think. And Board Member
Alex, would you be amenable to giving your feedback?
Alexandra Syphard: Are you are you talking me?
Marcy Edwards: Yep.
Alexandra Syphard: Okay, thanks.
Yeah. I mean, I am learning a lot as well, and
not coming from a utility background, a lot of this
is really interesting to me, and it's also encouraging.
Some of the technology that is coming out, like
the covered conductors and the, you know, following,
I mean, it's the super impressive, and it's really
encouraging and I really appreciate, as I said,
one size does not fit all, and it seems that that's the
concept that you all are embracing, and you
know, I'm encouraged by it.
Marcy Edwards: Alright, Board
Member Porter, you have any thoughts on the muni
presentation?
Porter: Yeah, I enjoyed it. It was pretty comprehensive. I
do have a few questions. With the covered conductor,
that's going to be the new standard for probably 55
entities out there, including IOUs and MPOUs, for
the high fire areas where they literally can't eliminate
assets. What have have you done in order to
procure the appropriate amount of covered conductor?
This wouldn't be standard deployment equipment
for any of the IOUs or POUs. What is
the criteria that you're utilizing to identify where
you're going to put this conductor up, how you
gonna procure the appropriate amount, and how
are you going to actually deploy it? That's important.
Bryan: Would you like me to address that, Scott?
Yeah, there's a lot of things that go into, as far as designing,
to have the tree wire in place. The covered conductors,
like I said, it still has the weight difference
on it. It still has a load difference on it. A covered
conductor, obviously, is not as efficient as an open
conductor just for the cooling purposes alone of being
in the open air. So loading has a lot to do with
what size we can put up there. So a covered conductor
obviously have to be a larger wire that's going
in place to carry the same amount of load, which increases
the weight, which increases the building material that
we need, the wind loading and everything else. So there
is some design aspects that go into that. There's some
cost elements to it too. The additional material plus
the work hours to work on a covered wires is obviously
a lot different than a bare wire. So all that kind
of goes into place. What we're doing is we're starting
in our Tier 3 areas, and for all of our pole replacements,
where we have copper wire in the air, we're replacing
it with tree wire. So it's becoming one of our standard
designs moving forward, but obviously, it doesn't fit in
every application.
Porter: Okay. And, I'm sorry. To continue, and it's, going
along with with Chair Edward, how are you
guys prioritizing that replacement to just
veg management?
Bryan: I'm sorry. How we prioritizing?
Porter: Yeah,
in comparison. Instead of just a utilizing veg management
as a, or line clearance, as an option to replacing.
There are certain communities that that's extremely important to
have, as a peace of mind, to have that covered conductor
there. How are you weighing?
Bryan: Yeah, we have no intention
of doing one or the other, right? They are going to
go into parallel. Our new construction standards are
going to be, in Tier 3 and Tier 2 areas, are going
to be, you know, alternative poles, fiberglass cross
arms, increased spacing, increased wind loading calculation,
and tree wire. The vegetation management program still
is going to continue as it is. We're going to continue
to inspect every tree within our right of way, every year,
and do our same brush clearance technique that we're
doing now. So they are not gonna be one in lieu of the other.
They're gonna be in parallel.
Marcy Edwards: Alright, Member Block, do you have any questions
for the POU community?
Block: I don't have any explicit questions. I did want to
say that I'm encouraged to hear more from the POUs
on their collaboration efforts amongst each other and
how they go about that, and what their public
engagement process looks like. I think the Board probably
has a lot to learn with how they do business and
how we can incorporate that to the processes we're thinking
about. Thank you.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you, ma'am. I actually agree.
Mr Mader?
John Mader: Yes. My question or comment is, I haven't had a chance
yet to review the individual POU mitigation plans,
but I did find it extremely helpful that there was
a common platform from the IOU. It was much easier to find
things. It was much easier to compare plans. And
considering that you have so many clients, has there
been thought given to a common platform so that, you
know, of the different mitigation, different considerations.
Not exactly alike, obviously, you have different interest
in the IOUs and different drivers. But still,
if there was a common platform, it would make it easier
for others to compare and analyze your mitigation
plan.
Marcy Edwards: You know, I read
(inaudible, crosstalk) and I agree with you
I'm just having trouble integrating the topographal
and geographic instances. But I would again encourage
the municipal community, the publicly owned community,
to find those two or three or four commonalities that
that they can put into that frame work, and I hear you,
I hear you. I'm sorry, Scott or Bryan, I didn't mean to
step on you. Go ahead.
Scott: Oh, thank you. Thank you, Chair
Edwards. I just wanted to comment briefly that, in the
development of the plans themselves, we we actually, as
part of our collaboration, we started with a general
template that could work for some of the smaller utilities.
Which many of them of used. So as you start to review
some of those things, you'll see a common framework
for some of these documents. And as some of the larger
utilities that have other things that they want to address,
they would sort of expand on that and do some other
things. But it's not as if you're going to see just
a potpurri of 40 different types of documentation
to come your way when you review it. But we can certainly
look into that moreso for purposes of reporting.
Marcy Edwards: I appreciate that. Ralph, do you have anything
you want to make sure hits the table here?
Ralph Armstrong: No, not really, ChairmanEdwards. I just want to
thank
both Scott and Bryan for the presentation. Very, very informative
on the POUS are doing. I would just make
one comment because we're starting to see this from
the end user because there's so much discussion
over the use of proper
conductor, you know, and we're installing it to
mitigate a fire issue. But it does create some issues
with related to the end user or the worker in the field
regarding safety, current safety practices, and how do you
verify test voltage? How do you install
grounds? Those types of things. So I just, you know,
I just want to pass that. And it's not just an issue,
won't be just an issue associated with the POUs.
Its an issue associated with everybody that's using that.
Now, when it's new, when it's up, we don't anticipate
any issues. But when there is one, just trying to
develop plans and, you know, beforehand, before it
becomes an issue.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you Board Member. Vice Chair, do you have anything
you want to observe with respect to the municipal presentation?
Diane Fellman: Yes. Thank you, Chair Edwards. I also extend my
thanks. Not only for today's presentation, but the manner
in which the publicly owned utilities have embraced
this Board's mission. It's really been a steep learning
curve for all of us. I come more from the IOU
world, and I really do want to express gratitude
for the publicly owned utilities helping us to learn
about them, and then, engaging in a way that we can accomplish
our statutory responsibilities and still respect the
POUs individuality.
Marcy Edwards: All right, I appreciate that. Do we have anymore comments from
Board Members? Because I do need to open it up for
public comments at the conclusion of the POU
presentation. Anything else from Board Members?
All right, let get my list. My God. Alright. Wildfire
Safety Advisory Board email box. Catherine Stockton, do
you have any emails?
Catherine Stockton: I'm very excited and happy to
report that we have received one email. This comes
from Jason Nicoli. He's the engineer at
Pasadena Water and Power Department. And he said
that the city of Pasadena has been installing covered
wire as the standard wire for nearly 15 years.
Marcy Edwards: Yes, that makes sense. Alright, anymore?
Diane Fellman: No, no more emails.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you. Now I'm going to
check the chat box. Jack Chang, do we have anything?
Jack Chang: This is Jack Chang. We received one comment on the
Board's recommendations after the vote. And I will
read it here. It's from Harry Burton of the CPUC Public
Advocate's Office. And he writes, the Public Advocates
office appreciates the Wildfire Safety Advisory
Board's recommendations regarding the IOUs 2020
Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Several of which are similar
to ideas that the Public Advocates office addressed in our comments
on the wildfire mitigation plans. However, has the
Board given consideration to how to separate the scope
of wildfire mitigation plans from other commission
proceedings, especially the de-energization
rulemaking, several of the Board's recommendations relating
to de-engergization. And there's (mumbled) for interaction
what the de-engergization rulemaking. There could be
duplication or conflicts. For example, standards for
de-energization are developed separately by the Wildfire
Safety Advisory Board and Safety and Enforcement
Division in different proceedings. The Board's recommendation
on re-energization did not reference to revised guidelines
that are being developed by Safety and Enforcement division
and Energy division. Has the Board's coordinated
with Safety and Enforcement division or Energy division
regarding work that is occurring in the de-energization
rulemaking. Similarly, recommendation number eight relates
to developing criteria and metrics for grid hardening
projects that aim to mitigate the scope and impact
de-energization. The public advocate's office
agrees that developing such criteria is important, however
it is unclear whether this is the scope of the Wildfire
Safety division's responsibility and authority.
The Wildfire Safety division scope is focused on
mitigating wildfire risk, not mitigating PSPS impact. It
may be more appropriate to develop criteria for such
great hardening projects in the context of the de-energization
rulemaking. And that concludes comments from the chatbox.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you, Jack. I appreciate that. We will take
those comments under advisement. I would like
to check with our telephone operator. Do we have any
public comments on the phone?
Operator: There are no public comments
at this time.
Marcy Edwards: Thank you so much. Finally, I'd like check
with the Public Advisor, Allison Brown. Have you received any
comment?
Allison Brown: I have not received any public comments at
this time.
Marcy Edwards: I appreciate that. Is there anyone else
amongst the Board that I did not call on that wants
to insert information about the Public Owned Utility
presentation. I thought I hit everyone, but, you know,
technologically, it's exploding.
All right,
all right, I will, given the time frame, it's three
o'clock. We're running ahead. I'm going to move into
the introductory discussion about the timeline and
next steps. And I would like to, again, introduce Catherine
Stockton to lead the discussion.
Catherine Stockton: Thank you. So
staff developed an alternative timeline
that we would like to present to the Board today. This
is slide 31 for our wonderful IT folks, slide 31.
And we developed this alternative timeline
because, for two reasons. First, because of
public comment, as stakeholders can see, we
receive public comments here, today, this week on the
13th, and there wasn't really much trying to
really review public comment in depth, but and
as advisers, there wasn't enough time for us to make
a recommendation to the Board, and for the Board
to consider that recommendation on any potential changes.
So in this next round of recommendations, we have
proposed, I think it's six days, six or seven
days, between when public comments is due to when the, we
will post any revised recommendations.
And then, the other reason is that we've
made these changes, proposed these changes to the timeline,
is that we don't we don't believe it's necessary
to have a 2 board meeting on one set of recommendations.
So we propose cancelling the May board meeting.
And that way, staff can focus its energy on assisting
the Board in development of these recommendations.
Marcy Edwards: Catherine? Can I can I ask you for
a, and this is me, a crayon interpretation. We're
asking the Board to delete the May 27 meeting. And what
are we replicating that with? Study sessions? What are we
doing?
Catherine Stockton: The Board can continue it's Bagley-Keene meeting,
continue its communication with staff, but no,
there wouldn't be any other replacement for the main
meeting. We would continue and have the meeting in
June. Alright, so we'll (inaudible,
crosstalk) May 27 is off the table. Are you
OK? Do not like it? What? What are you thinking?
You're all going what the hell.
Catherine Stockton: In terms of timeline, it doesn't
change that much. It just means we wouldn't, so as it was
developed, initially, we would have had, we would have
released the the May, we would have released
the materials earlier in May, and then
discussed the recommendations at the Board meeting,
and then accepted public comment, and then revised and
then had another meeting. But this way, it gives
the Board additional time to develop recommendations.
That is another (inaudible, crosstalk) reason.
Marcy Edwards: The Vice Chair would
like to say something.
Diane Fellman: Thank you. What we would be doing during
this time is now turning our attention to the 2021
WMP guidelines. As we're statutorily bound.
We'll be developing an approach, just like we did
for 2020. We'll be able to do a deeper dive. Given
that we do not have any ex parte limitations as
a Board, we can also use this time to workshop ideas
or have individual meetings with stakeholders, such
as the IOUs, the cities and county, other community
representatives, individuals, etcetera, etcetera, that
we've, other agencies. And we can also take the
time to do our own individual greater research. So
this is important for two reasons. One, we can
expand our efforts. And also we can have our advisors
not spend the time organizing an interim meeting
but rather focus directly on our draft recommendations
for 2021. Thank you.
Marcy Edwards: Okay.
All right. Does anyone have, of Board Members and
and our incredible advisors, anyone have feedback
on adjusting our schedule to the new timeline
proposed by staff. Anybody have heartache?
If not, I'm gonna entertain a motion.
Give me a hand.
Come on. Thank you, John. And I need a second. Thank
you, Jessica. All those in favor, raise a hand.
1, 2, 3, 4. All right. All right. That's a go.
Okay, Jamie, Anything else we need to do?
I mean, I consider this an unmitigated success. I
am just blown away, and it was our advisors, I have
no doubt as many did. Ladies and gentlemen, holy
cow, we conducted a public session with sufficient
feedback. And we did it, you know, unbelievably
controlled and logical way. Oh, my God.
Good job, girls. Ladies. I don't know the right word.
All right, now, have we voted yet? We did.
All right.
We did the vote on the timeline. Thank you for participating
in this virtual, and yeah, the IT guys were fabulous. Thank
you so much. Joe Honda and his team. I mean,
it was amazing. We looked like we knew what we were
doing,
so thank you. Thank you to all the support staff. Wow.
All right, Jamie. Anything else?
All right, boys and girls. I would entertain
a motion to adjourn. Ralph. Seconded by Chris. All right.
All those in favor.
Thank you, you get it. All right. Good job, you guys. Just
incredible work.
Unknown1: And same to you, Marcy. I think
the Board appreciates your leadership. A round of applause
for Marcy. Because we couldn't have done it without you.