Announcer: Brought to you by adminmonitor.com,
will begin momentarily.
Thank you for your patience.
Man: Will you please start the feed?
Man: The line is open.
-: Good afternoon, everyone.
And, welcome to the fully virtual public meeting
of the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board.
We're gonna spend the next few minutes
going over the technology to be used during the meeting,
so, that we can all start together
with our technology actually working.
Okay, all the ways to interact with the board
during this meeting can be found on
the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website
at cpuc.ca.gov/WSAB/.
This meeting will be live broadcast
at the normal CPUC live broadcast location,
which is adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc.
It's probably the easiest way to watch this public meeting
as all the components will be integrated there
and restored...
Recorded for all of prosperity.
That's actually right, that's very cute,
recorded for prosperity.
Okay.
Let's see, we're taking a few minutes again
to get our technology in order,
we hope that everyone can resolve any technology issues
they have in advance, and we can all start the meeting,
all of us on the same page.
Alright, to interact with the board during the meeting,
we have a phone number and an operator on standby
to queue the line.
The call number is listed on the meeting agenda,
which can be found
on the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website
and the main CPUC website.
The phone number is 1-800-857-1917.
The passcode is 1767567.
Again, phone number is 1-800-857-1917,
passcode 1767567.
When you dial call, you'll be in a listen only mode.
If you'd like to participate during public comment,
please press *1 on the phone,
you'll be added to the public comment queue
and called upon, I will be your system operator.
Alright.
Public comment (static distort audio)
in a Wildfire Safety Advisory Board email box, that address,
wildfiresafetyadvisoryboard@cpuc.ca.gov.
Comments received here to be read into the record,
assuming they can be read in under 3 minutes
and all comments received will be posted
to the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website
after the meeting.
In addition, the CPUC public advisor is on standby,
they're having additional technical problems.
Please don't hesitate to reach out the public advisor
either by email or phone as public.advisor@CPUC.CA.gov,
phone number is 866-849-8390.
Okay, let's do a time check.
We're at 104, our slide path
I mean, Katherine, we're getting close here.
Okay, all of the way to interact with the board
can be found in the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website,
and again, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WSAB/.
The meeting will be live broadcast
at the normal CPUC live broadcast location,
www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc.
This is probably the easiest way to watch public meetings
as all the components will be integrated.
Okay.
We have as mentioned,
interact with the board during this meeting,
we have a phone number and (static distort audio) the line.
To call, hang on just a second,
I have background noise so I've got to stop.
Sorry.
Excuse me.
Okay.
And again, one more time please,
phone numbers for anybody who missed it 1-800-857-1917,
the passcode is 1767567.
You call in, you'll be in listen only mode.
If you'd like to participate, press *1.
Okay.
Jamie, Katherine, are we ready to open the meeting?
I call this meeting ordered today June 24th, 2020,
this is the fourth meeting.
Wildfire Safety Advisory Board,
my name is Marcie Edwards, I'll be your Chair today.
I'd like to begin by thanking my fellow board members
for being with us in the first and second virtual meeting.
When we were putted in, 2019 actually,
none of us thought we could be doing virtual meetings
and recently I think it's doing very well, so far.
I would also,
in that same vein like to thank our IT professional
for your assistance in ensuring this meeting,
just like the last one runs smoothly.
I'd like to begin today's meeting
with the following acknowledgements.
The persistence of systemic racism impacts
all corners of our society.
Communities of color are disproportionately affected
by wildfire, wildfire risk as well as pollution.
Wildfire (static distort audio)touches the lives
of our most vulnerable communities,
including individuals who are elderly, disadvantaged kids,
and those who cannot participate in the development
(static distort audio).
Well, our primary role is to provide guidance
to the Wildfire Safety Division
regarding wildfire education.
We must examine our own policies and programs
with an eye for equity, diversity,
and celebrate the humanity.
It frankly belongs to each of us.
And with that, I'd like to turn this meeting over
to the board members so that they can say a few additional.
-: Thank you chair Edwards.
Can you all hear me?
Great.
I'd like to make a statement about our current state
in America.
The members of the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
acknowledged the persistence of systemic racism
in the United States.
American institutions have been central instrumenting
segregation and discrimination.
For example, redlining was an official policy
that has resulted in Black Americans nationwide
living in more polluted and resource poor region.
Redlining was a process in which
the home owner's loan corporation, a federal agency,
gave neighborhoods ratings, guide innocence.
Black neighborhoods, brown and red,
were considered habitus and not desirable
for providing home loans.
Now, ethnic color are disproportionately affected
by wildfires, wildfire risks and it's pollution.
Any institution that does not acknowledge
and ask to reverse the effects of these historical policies
act as an accomplice to them.
As members of the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board,
we commit to do our part in creating
anti-racist institutional policies.
I would like to begin enacting this commitment to create,
anti-racist policies by proposing to span,
the stakeholder cooperation
and community engagement sections
of the utility wildfire mitigation maturity
assessment section, of the wildfire mitigation plan.
In the 2020 guidelines,
the section focus on communication with
limited English proficiency
and access and functional needs populations.
I recommend redefining the section to better engage
and address
communities disproportionately impacted by wildfire.
The communities that include an even broader coalition
of impacted communities, including,
the limited English language proficiency population access
and functional needs population, communities of color,
first nations and resource for communities.
I commit as a Wildfire Safety Advisory board member,
to pursue the wildfire safety needs of communities of color,
and resource for communities.
I plan to engage with community leadership
within each of the noted communities
and provide additional focus on communities,
disproportionately impacted by wildfire.
My name is Mike, sorry,
my aim is not a unilateral commitment
to increase our work efforts,
but it's an investment to learn from these communities
and benefit on their own leadership and experience.
They can understand the needs
of our underserved California communities,
we must give that community the seat at the table.
To this end, I would like to pursue the following paths.
First, request community needs assessment,
or to engage with leaders to complete community
needs assessments of underserved community in California,
with respect to wildfire safety.
Obviously, incorporate leaders from community
disproportionately impacted by wildfire intervals
directly impacting fire policy and response.
And in the future,
ensure that the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board prioritizes
recruiting leaders from communities disproportionately
impacted by wildfire to the board.
Finally, we cannot change what we can't name.
Many Americans today are unaware that redlining
and other policies existed equal recently.
I commit to elaborating with existing research
and community organizations in the field,
towards the common goal of sharing
this historical information on the topic.
I will be working with our staff to add information
to our three board website on data, first here.
If you're interested in helping me with this topic,
please contact me.
You can find my information on our website.
In addition, my email address is
doctorchrisbelblock@CTPT.CA.com.
Thank you board members,
and I look forward to collaborating with all of you
and CPUC on this matter.
-: We can't hear you Marcie.
-: Alright, so it's fine, is that so?
I'd like to send right over to Vice Chair Diane Fellman,
to lead us in pledging allegiance.
-: Thank you.
I pledge allegiance to the flag
All: 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.
-: I now, hand the meeting over to Jamie Ormond
(static distort audio)
-: Thank you, Vice Chair Fellman.
This is usually the time we go over the axis
on location background.
Instead,
experience to take a look around our current location
to consider our safety options.
We are doing our best to make this virtual meeting
to have the best access as possible.
All of the information about this meeting
can be found on the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website,
www cpuc.ca.gov/WSAB,
links to all the documents that we will be discussing today
can be found there.
The documents include,
the minutes from the April 15th meeting,
the agenda for today.
Recommendations,
on the 2021 wildfire mitigation plan guidelines,
performance metrics and safety culture.
Today's PowerPoint presentation,
that is running during this meeting.
And with that, I'd like to turn
the meeting back over to Chair Edwards.
-: Thank you.
(static distort audio)
Alright, I was thinking housekeeping portion of the meeting
till it's complete, but no,
we have one more review to go through.
Let's talk very quickly about the agenda.
We're gonna begin today with public comments.
Yes or no it's repetitive,
but it's important, given the virtual nature
of these meeting, to ensure that everyone knows
how to be able to see his face, if they so choose.
So, again, the phone number +1 800-685-71917,
passcode is 1767567.
You press *1 on your phone to get in the queue,
there might be a delay.
You press *1 and when the operator places you in the queue,
so, please be patient.
Public comment is critical for us to hear
and we will do our best to make sure,
that we hear from everyone who wants to address the board.
After public comments,
we will discuss and potentially adopt the minutes
from the April 15th board meeting.
Following that,
the board will take up the topic of our recommendations
on the 2021 wildfire mitigation plan guidelines,
performance metrics and safety culture.
Public comment on this slide,
and we'll be beginning with the items,
and the board will discuss the recommendations,
and then the recommendations will be put to a vote.
At the conclusion of this item, we'll take a stretch break.
After the stretch break,
we'll turn to the topic of the Publicly Owned Utilities
and the template that they use, their wealth,
our mitigation plan.
There will be another opportunity for public comments,
for presentation and discussion.
Following that, the board will discuss
the Wildfire Safety Division wrap Strategy Document.
We look forward to speaking with, Director Caroline
on the speaker about division,
for the future of the division,
and we will subsequently discuss.
And finally,
Wildfire Safety Division management presentation
on their most recent work efforts (static distort audio)
and review process, and why is that date?
Subsequent to that we will adjourn the meeting.
So, thereby, ready?
Nod at me.
Excellent.
Alright, good.
We're gonna start today's minutes
because I clearly have not read this phone number
and I have to.
Please be patient as we move through to the panel,
so, let's get started.
First, I'd like to check the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
email box, Ms. Katherine Stockton,
do you have any email communications?
-: One moment.
The only email communication I ever received,
is from Susie Berlin and she says that,
"The audio is frankly."
We are aware of this issue.
So, please be patient with us, thank you.
-: We'll work on it.
So, it's probably my microphone, unfortunately.
Alright, as I confirm with our telephone operator,
do you have any public comment on Fellman?
-: I currently have no public comment.
-: Alright, thank you very much.
This should...
I'm hearing nothing, close out on the comment period.
Okay.
Literally slides (static distort audio) there we go.
And we move on to the next topic of the agenda.
The April 15th board meeting minutes,
meeting minutes can be found
on the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website.
It is my hope, everyone has had a chance
to review the minutes.
And, do we have any edits or edition to the meeting minutes?
There is none.
I would like to ask for a vote to adopt the meeting minutes,
on April 15th 2020.
-: Board Member Porter, second sir.
-: Thank you, it's been moved and seconded.
All those in favor.
All: Aye.
Member: Aye. -: Alright.
-: We'll take that vote next on the agenda,
that's under the board's recommendation of 2021.
All affirmative mitigation plan guidelines,
performance metrics and safety culture.
So, pursuant to the recommendations of Senate Bill 1054,
the board has some of the recommendations on the 2021
wildfire mitigation plan guidelines.
Before we get into our fourth conversation,
it's recommendation.
We would, again, reveal to the public.
We're gonna hold...
We're gonna hold public comments again.
I don't want anyone to complain to me,
after the fact that there was insufficient opportunity,
for the public to participate.
-: All right.
First, Katherine Stockton,
do we had any email communication?
-: We do not have any other email communication.
-: Thank you.
I'd like to check with our phone operators,
do we have any public comment online?
-: We currently have no public comment.
-: Thank you very much.
Okay, before we get into comments from Board nation,
I'd like to invite our staff to make a brief presentation
summarizing the 23 different recommendations.
So, any person ready?
-: Yep.
-: All right.
-: Thank you, Chair Edwards.
So, just before the board begins to liberating,
we're gonna take a moment,
to briefly summarize each of the boards recommendations,
that are contained within the document entitled,
recommendations on the 2021
wildfire mitigation plan guidelines, performance metrics
and safety culture.
We will reference each recommendation by numbers,
so, you can follow along,
for everyone attending today's board meeting,
you could download the full 2021 recommendations document
on the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website.
The recommendations are organized
into six different categories, including structural,
those in line
with wildfire safety division guidance resolution,
those that go beyond what was identified
in the guidance resolution.
Recommendations on performance metrics,
several strategies for improving safety culture
and finally, recommendations that would likely require
action outside of the wildfire mitigation plan.
-: Thank you, Jamie.
I'm gonna take just a moment to pause too, so that,
the camera of the slide catches up with us
for my face, atleast,
because there's a 30 second delay between when
the AdminMonitor
sees us.
So, section 1 includes structural recommendations
that offer improvements to how the wildfire mitigation plans
are organized, and how the data is reported.
Section 1.1, proposes minor changes to the guidelines,
focusing around the 10 mitigation areas and lessons learned.
Section 1.2, recommends that the utilities highlight
the laws and proceedings that shaped program activities
in the narrative of the wildfire mitigation plan write up.
Section 1.3, urgency Wildfire Safety Division to establish,
an achievable convention schedule for the 2021
wildfire mitigation plan
that its regulators stakeholders and the division for
access and the utilities.
Section 1.4, suggests that the
2021 wildfire mitigation plan guidelines,
should maximize efficiencies by balancing data submission,
quarterly reporting and program implementation reporting.
-: Section 2, contains recommendations that generally align
with Wildfire Safety Division guidance, resolution 002.
When the board reviewed the guidance resolution,
many of the boards 2021 recommendations aligned
with the information that resolution provided the utilities.
For example,
section 2.1, opposes that utilities provide a deeper risk
and efficiency analysis on each mitigation measure
at the circuit level.
Section 2.2, recommends additional training and standards
for qualified electrical workers.
Section 2.3, recommends updating the CPUC Fire-Threat Map,
and using additional risk assessment tool
to guide utility implementation of mitigation measures.
In section 2.4, recommends greater standardization
of data collected across utilities for better compatibility.
-: Looking ahead, section 3 includes recommendations
for 2020 wildfire mitigation plan guidelines
that push further than the guidance,
the Wildfire Safety Division guidance resolution
I had imagined.
Section 3.1, proposes additional scientific review
of modeling inputs and assumptions
and suggest that those should occur before the...
Before the implement extensions are used
in the wildfire mitigation programs.
Section 3.2, recommends developing a data access portal
and a hierarchy of data provision,
to allow interested parties to access
a variety of levels of wildfire data,
and models used to make this decision.
Section 3.3, sets the expectation that,
scientific justifications used to make this decision
be clarified in advance of program implementation,
especially, in the area of vegetation management.
Section 3.4, just additional training programs
for a variety of
utility workers
and in evaluation of workforce equity
to mitigate the shrinking pool of employee resources.
Section 3.5, recommends that vegetation management practices
align with the best available plan.
Section 3.6, proposes partnerships
with utility equipment suppliers
to mitigate constraints on supply resources.
And section 3.7, recommends close collaboration
between Wildfire Safety Division subject matter experts,
and the CPUC general rate case experts.
When the reasonableness
of the wildfire mitigation implementation costs
are considered.
-: Section 4, contains a couple of recommendations
on utility wildfire safety performance metrics.
Section 4.1, opposes that Wildfire Safety Division,
the Commission and stakeholders deliberate
and implement a new utility electric resiliency threshold,
in order to reduce the risks of utility ignited wildfire.
That also, significantly reduces the use
of the public safety power shut off
as the wildfire risk mitigation tool of choice.
This new threshold, would enable utilities to deploy
wildfire risk reduction tools in a coordinated
and cost effective manner,
in order to create an electric grid
that the utilities could run confidently,
in higher winds scenarios.
The board stands ready,
to assist the regulatory and utility communities
to help develop this threshold that would permit
the electric system to constantly operate
under windy conditions.
Section 4.2, recommends additional performance metrics
and recording in the area of community outreach
and emergency preparedness,
so, that Wildfire Safety Division and the CPUC
can properly evaluate effectiveness
of utility programs in this area.
-: Section 5, includes,
recommendations on utility safety culture.
Here, board urges
the utility use wildfire mitigation planning,
and implementation as a springboard
to improve their safety culture.
Section 5.1, suggests that,
new group be created to study black swan events,
to help utilities prepare for future safety events
that are outside of the standard areas of analysis.
Section 5.2, proposes that,
safety assurance language be inserted
into the utility board of director
and manager level job descriptions,
so, that accountability can be enacted when necessary.
section 5.3, recommends that,
high level utility safety standards be maintained over time.
And section 5, recommends that,
post accident followup briefings and learning
becoming more standardized and integrated aspects
of the utility electrical, the electric utility landscape.
-: Finally, section 6, of the board 2021 recommendations,
include recommendations that will likely need action
by the legislature our Governor to implement.
Section 6.1, recommends that Wildfire Safety Division
remain the California public utilities,
in the midst of an international pandemic
that has slowed facility wildfire plan implementation,
for citizens to shelter in place, all across the state,
and resulted in over 5,515 deaths in California.
It is an inefficient use of time, energy
and budget resources to move Wildfire Safety Division
to another agency at this time.
Well, this move may have been reasonable in 2019
when Assembly Bill 1054 was considered,
the significant change to our working environment
since then, require that Wildfire Safety Division
and staff members at all of our agencies
direct all of our attention and efforts,
wildfire risk reduction, wildfire mitigation work,
and safety.
Finally, 6.2,
suggests several topic areas for further investigation.
And with that, thank you Chair of the Board, back to you.
-: Thank you very much.
That's a very good job ladies and...
Well, I'm sure, we'll get you to think of the organization
(static distort audio)
in English language to be as cohesive as it was.
I am so impressed, with the two of you.
So, I just wanted to insert that very quickly.
Alright, it's time we're looking to get through
(static distort audio) recommendation...
Individual Board Members.
Then I would like to start with Vice Chair Fellman.
-: Alright, thank you Chair Edwards.
Must point out, the secret of bedding ahead
it's get started, and that's what the Board has done.
Since our January kickoff meeting,
we have forged the framework that builds the 2021,
and it's really been amazing for six months effort.
And I wanna extend my thanks to you Chair Edwards,
leading us the board all the way,
or just jumping in and doing all the hard work
you're dividing your execution team work
and a lot of patient.
And I'll add my thanks to all the members of staff.
Ulike 2020, which was a reactor
document in our recommendations,
led to the wildfire mitigation plan guidelines
and that means one team that already (static audio).
The 2021 mitigation that clear out(static audio)
Jamie and Stockton just gave a very brief summary
on Wildfire Safety Division strategy.
I wanna highlight several themes that stood out
in our review.
First, I want you to understand that we are aware
and have incorporated the myriad of effort
that the CPUC align underway, on while recommendation.
We believe that these efforts they have to stand out
in the admitted (static distort audio)
and the recommended guidelines
(static distort audio)
but incorporate what else CPUC (static distort audio).
We also did our gap analysis where there may be area
for further elements and guidance on the part
of the regulators for the majorities.
In this era of COVID, we are supportive and emphasize
the 54 combined capacity and wildfire.
Whereas, (static distort audio) because we have a pandemic
and all of us are sheltered in a place.
Lastly, we want to acknowledge the developers individually
(static distort audio) individual efforts,
and work today (static distort audio)
adopted by the public Commission of resolution
who general signed it and for each eye on view.
And the community, we also acknowledge that we,
eventually, totally (static distort audio)
that will be the potential impact of wildfires
efficient wildfire and neihbourhood impacts.
So, I looked at the session today
and I hand the meeting back to you, Chair Edward.
-: Thank you Vice Chair Diane Fellman,
I think your words are of knowledge,
they are appreciated by all of us.
With that, I guess we can hear from Board Member Porter.
-: Thank you, Chair Edwards.
Yeah, I get to echo the words of Vice Chair Fellman,
even louder of how, in a such a short period of time,
this body with extensive experience
and credible knowledge
of the particulars of mitigating on fires
and how well we've worked together,
and trying to put forth in the 2021 recommendations,
something that's more proactive.
And we truly believe, or I do that,
they're obtainable and definitely deliverable by the IOU.
What we're asking for,
is looking to take what they have
and what they have in personnel,
and bringing training to them that meets or exceeds
the wildfire divisions and independent inspectors,
where for them to help us,
help them solve problems that...
That they ultimately would face moving forward and
making these recommendations actionable.
And, the fact that they are receptive,
at least to public comment is incorrect.
Again,
I'm humbled by the other six board members that I work with,
without them, the work that we've done wouldn't be possible.
And the staff again, I think I said earlier,
sometimes taking all the ramblings
and making them more cohesive and actionable is amazing.
But again, I am extremely humbled.
So, back to you, Chair Edwards.
-: And again, your list is whatever appeals
to any individual.
I hope that those words continue to resonate.
With that, Board Member Mader, let's hear from you.
-: Board Member Mader,
can you unmute your microphone, please?
-: Thanks, I had a little prepared statement already together
but I forgot to unmute myself.
Thank you, Chair Edwards.
I'd like to start by acknowledging
the work of the Wildfire Safety Division
and also thank all the board members.
And of course, our staff that have all these...
These recommendations,
which I believe will benefit the people of California.
I'm gonna trust the
recommendations that I was primarily responsible
for initiating.
And, I want to pull to,
you know, I want to develop
the system hardening, electric utility,
resiliency professionals, or the grid RD operating criteria,
and a specific deficiency calculation
that considers the risk of public safety power shut down.
It's in bed in the W and P,
the wildfire mitigation plan guidelines,
an in-common methodology.
It can also be used in sermon homes worth
that cost effectively to reduce wildfire risk,
and also, to reduce the use of public PFCs at hand,
with the same or similar amount
of research resources furniture,
then just to address the risk of wildfire.
I would like to know that our draft recommendations,
I initially turned similar to those in AB 1064.
I thought it would help readers
to be more readily understand this concept.
I did not achieve that goal.
Apparently, I induced more than one PTSD incident.
And I thank...
Thank you to all of those economists,
because you're able to identify that these and that language
helps in trying in the understanding of the concept.
And every name he named is to the system hardening,
electric utility resiliency threshold.
Recommendation 2.1, this inefficiency,
and 4.1, electric utility resiliency
and risk reduction threshold,
are meant to be (static distort audio)
To demonstrate this concept, I would like to use an example,
to more effectively desccribe.
Today actually, I'm gonna cover some concepts
and the function.
So, wildfire risk reduction,
hardening such as the use of color
or a conductor
or enhanced maintenance define an address,
noncompliance plan and enhance all we do
to reduce risk of wildfire.
All we do is until the initial,
all fire ecology is conceivable
to the application assessment mitigation.
Couldn't make it operate a circuit at a higher wound speed.
Then added level of risk in that circuit.
This reduction in the corn company operating criteria,
that'd be quantified to a minimum acceptable, special.
It would be more possible to operate
with that risk reduction warrants,
system hardening, electric utility threshold.
(static distort audio)
It's not a one size fits all.
I use fulfill dam to develop,
continue to operate their current standard and the WWFC,
rather if the WFC does well,
it would most likely be a floor in other field.
So, the goals of the (static distort audio)
currently the wildfire mitigation plan guideline
need to direct the IOU to consider the reduction of wildfire
as the outback of the risk (static distort audio).
The WNC also set a thought within on
public safety power shut down to address wildfire risk,
all recommendation combined as the object
of our mitigation plan population.
With the development of both iteration consequences of PFCs
at relative efficiency calculation,
after all public power, since DSPs do effect.
And the system hardening electric utility,
it's possible to analyze the application
of wildfire risk reduction mitigation projects
for the projected value, with respect to both
the wildfire risk reduction and power safety.
Public safety power shutdown, reliance deception,
that this is intended to achieve the standards
on the part of the IU.
It sounds that the circuits study are compliant
with existing scan PBS.
So, going to the example,
I may lose some of you during this example,
and I'm willing to talk with anybody,
to contact me for the sake of this example,
address stay when threshold, property,
as well as under simplification.
So, we're gonna talk about transmission line one
and transmission line one third, this Valley,
and had three cessation.
Transmission line one is ready to operate,
the 55 miles per hour and free substations.
The transmission line and the cessation
are all in the high fire district.
Each substation feeds one third,
which will be circuit 1, substation 1,
circuit 2 in substation 2, and circuit 3, substations 3,
each circuit has 2 sections
separated by a remotely operational operatable device.
Each circuit in all mine sessions have similar property
and wildfire risk profile, except for the three section 2,
which has a much higher risk profile,
made a denser for it and consequence projection.
That is because 33 sections 2,
just hypothetical feed the refinery at the bottom
in a month, I heavily bullied around this area
and instead of urban zone on the top of that mountain.
For sections 1 and 2,
the first one it's action are realiable and very short,
for section two, are very long to have low density.
Okay, three section one, is long and has a low density.
And section two, is a circuit three is short,
and as I mentioned, highly risky and customer dense.
All three sections are currently based ready
to operate up to 35 miles per hour,
sustained by the IOU that operates with service.
Without the consideration, other PSPS also,
or have experienced 2 PFCs in the last three years,
each year and whenever he's 45 miles hour to say,
I put one section one and all other sessions
on a circuit one and circuit 2 and 3,
every 55 miles per hour or 65 miles per hour.
All sections are projected to continue to experience
the same historical wind profile because they've experienced
into the future.
With the application of 2.1 and 4.1,
a tiny does it any beneficial CNL transmission one
and a transmission in circuits that transmission line.
You have threshold and including the consequences of a PFDs
as another risk considered when it determines
the application of three hardening techniques,
it determined that it is applied with one infection one,
that was most likely to eliminate the need for,
two, get PS events annually for a couple reasons,
certainly one section one.
Because it's determined that is able to operate at
that short semi-urban or that circuit at a wind speed
higher than the projected wind speed,
which is based on historical performance.
In addition that,
what I read from operating 31, section one,
it means that the risk of operating section three,
section two, is so high,
that the second most efficient risk inefficiency,
is the implementation of wildfire mitigation techniques
in circuit three, section two.
Even though that's ending, it's not projected to lower
the number of PFCs, because it won't be able to circuit.
It will be fed by section three, second circuit three,
section one, which will not have a higher rated ability.
So, what happened here, is that because they were able,
they heard the consequence of the PSPS
and they understood the risk review,
they went at it before risk reduction, operating criteria.
They were able to allocate those particular mitigation plan.
They were both the same amount of wildfire, correct.
And also, were able to reduce the number of PSPS events
by circuit one, section one, by two PFPs events,
projected annually.
I know that this analysis is complicated.
This component parts are relatively simple.
These are the types of analysis details
that every utility should consider,
for wildfire mitigation program implementation,
in order to get more benefit for their customers
from that... From those resource expenditures.
Even when there's urgency to reduce risk,
we must not shy away from the detail,
rather than we should embrace them
and study how we can address PSPS reduction
while achieving the same amount of wildfire risk reduction.
New concept is a way that we can do just that,
thank you Chair Edwards for allowing me
to make this comments.
-: Thank you, Board Member Mader,
your technical expertise is both admirable
and terrifying at the same time.
So, I will again go back and read your comments.
Just when I have a circuit diagram in front of me
would probably be helpful but...
-: I will provide you with...
I'm planning to do some sort of visual again,
to be able to help with the understanding of this concept.
-: A visual would be helpful.
Thank you again, sir.
Board Member Armstrong.
-: Yeah, Thanks Chair Edwards.
I'll keep my comments a lot less than
board members on Mader's, but with the caveat that,
my passion has no...
No last in old matters on the board,
I'd like to echo what everybody said,
I'd like to thank
Chairman Edwards and vice Chairman, Tom,
for all their support and Jamie and Katherine
because without them, it would have been difficult to...
To stay on track, so, thank you for...
I think board member or dimension are also
providing us (static audio) myself anyway,
to stay on track.
A lot of things going on this, on here.
So, you know, it's been said multiple times,
but for the last six months we've and many of us
in January 20th for the first time we met each other before.
So, I think it's quite...
I think the work that was put into this
was well thought out achievable and...
It's the proactive versus the reactive with the 2020 stuff.
So, I view this as a
document that we, you know, we...
Every year we can improve on
and get better with the ultimate goal of
reducing the risk wildfire and safety for the communities
and hip operation at Harvard.
Again, I think I can't really say much more than whatever
everybody's already had about me,
but I'm looking forward to getting...
Getting on the phone work and...
And I'm done thanks.
-: Thank you, Board Member Armstrong.
I concur with you obviously, as well.
Let's see, Board Member Block.
-: Thank you, Chair Edwards.
Just doing a sound check.
Can you hear me?
Great.
Okay, so,
my comments, have to be because of the themes
of collaboration and transparency.
At first, I wanna echo what my fellow board members
and say that, I'm really proud of our work
and how we've been able to blend our expertise together,
and these recommendations.
To also echo what others have said,
we've get the gun, and we're just...
We just began in January,
so, there's a lot we have learned from each other.
And for me,
most of what I've learned is that, there's a lot more
I need to learn from my fellow board members.
So, I'm looking forward to deeper dive
into the rest of the year and in the future.
I appreciate the tremendous work
at the Wildfire Safety Division.
I feel like the board and then edit division
have common points of view.
We're leveraging each other's points of view.
Our work make California a sustainable place.
And,
the safety of California should not be dependent
on private proprietary data or models.
I believe that these models need to be vetted and shared,
so, that you can learn from each other.
Similarly, as the safety division has pointed out
in their strategy, data is an asset.
I completely agree.
I even would call it the foundation
for all of our decisions.
In our recommendations,
we defined the Wildfire Safety Division,
vision for a taxonomy and data schema,
it wasn't sure because of the formatting
and screen recording data.
And it will allow for decision making in a rational
and data driven way.
I think that establishing working groups for inclusion
of building these standards is critical.
I'm really excited about building data standards
for wildfire utilities,
and it'll be a really wonderful example,
for the world to follow.
In many ways, emerging technology will help us make
significant strides and wildfire mitigation.
And I believe these new methods
must stay in the public run
because there's a lot to learn from them.
And, the only way that they can grow and become more refined
for the purpose of utility wildfire safety,
is to share and learn from them,
so, that we can grow that technology.
It is clear that interdisciplinary approaches
are necessary for sustainability.
So, for scientific transparency,
not only should the scientific work be sided,
but I think there are opportunities also,
lyrical working groups for elements of scientific research
that have not yet been integral to wildfire territory,
utility management.
To open up that science and have discussion
to that it's not just on the utility shoulder to learn
what is necessary in terms of time
that can inspire ecological process.
I also would like to use this platform to make the call for
making scientific fire science processes
more as parents there.
Well, I'm really looking forward to what the strategy
has to offer, and of the division strategy
on the data interfaces and products of data visualization
that will help us understand our environment
in the State of California.
If decided or process as it isn't easily understood,
then we can't make it actionable.
And I think there are ways that we can
start to really reduce barriers of that conversation.
As we streamline the data, the visualization,
the scientific understanding.
I'd like to profusely thank Katherine's docket
and Ormond for being our shining light through this process.
And, I think that...
I will leave it there, thank you.
-: Thank you, Board Member Block.
Yeah.
I feel there's a bit of the rights and privileges
of the chair, I'm gonna make a quick comment in that.
I agree with you in terms of the interdisciplinary approach
and the transparency of the data platforms.
What I worry about is the science difficult
for people to agree on.
I look right now, I can't find a clear story
regarding this pandemic really anywhere.
So, that will be the yeoman's lift,
and we're gonna have to figure out our way through it.
And thank you, for letting me take this time.
-: I'm really glad you said that actually,
and that come up in conversations
I've had with the staff and the board members.
There are conflicting points of view
about how certain things should be managed.
And I think in some cases,
everyone's points of view are correct
under certain environmental conditions.
So, the more we get to under...
We start streamlining this data process,
each from the utilities.
We'll start to discover also,
where conditions require particular types of management.
So, I'm hoping that we can develop
a forum for which those conversations can occur,
and, we can recognize the diversity of correct answers
in the State of California.
-: That's the next one point, thank you very much.
Board Member Syphard.
-: Alright, Can you hear me?
-: Yeah.
-: Okay, great.
Okay, well like everybody else,
I would like to acknowledge all the hard work
of my fellow board members and the incredible staff,
and a huge amount of work over the last few months.
I also want to reiterate that we all recognize
the enormous progress utilities have faced, so far,
in their efforts to mitigate wildfire risks.
And that the main objective now,
it's to run just change that can promote the most efficient
and effective means to continue building a feature
that has dramatically reduced ignition and potential
for catastrophic wildfire.
So, not only is providing safe and reliable energy
to the people of California, a massive and complex endeavor,
but wildfire will need your English
to be also highly complicated
with many scientific uncertainties.
So, again, it's from the scientific perspective
and background that I've contributed my recommendations
in this report.
And, what I'd like to do now,
is just share a couple of my thoughts
on three of the recommendations that I contributed to,
and that are most closely aligned with my expertise.
So, the first one of these is the recommendation
to improve the process of risk assessment,
particularly via improvements in the mapping process.
And what I'd like to emphasize here, is that maps
are one of the most important and fundamental components
of the wildfire mitigation process, because these determines
where the highest priority areas are and hence,
where most of the wildfire mitigation efforts concept.
And, in my own research,
one of the things I've consistently found that,
geographical footprint, different components
vary a lot depending on nuts.
So, for example, those geographic areas
that tend to have the highest probability of ignition
are very different than the geographical areas,
where fires are most likely to burn the most area.
And the reason for this is that,
different processes have different human
and ecological drivers that control,
that diary is different spatial in terms of scale.
So, it's important to be mindful of the type of map produced
and that the input to the creek that map
is appropriate for the type of objective.
And of course, it's appropriate to specific context,
which is created.
So, maps should be accurate.
They should be precise,
meaning they captured the areas of highest priority,
but exclude the areas of lowest priority
and reflective of current conditions,
such as substation characteristics, climatological trends,
the location of the assets that are most aggressive.
So, in terms of updating the Fire-Threat Map,
it's clear some processes change across the landscape
faster than others.
And I appreciate that it's very time consuming,
to generate high quality maps.
So, while we have recommended
increasing the frequency of map updates,
and in some cases you said annual,
I think also, it's important that it's not excessive
of what the appropriate.
So, the updates should be enough to account for minutes,
changes in the landscape that could affect
the way operations should be done.
But for that...
I also think maybe about three to five years
would be sufficient to capture most of the different
climate investigation properties,
as well as, newly developed tools and other assets at risk.
Okay, my next set of recommendations
that I contributed to surround
a lot of what Jessica was talking about,
involving additional exclosure disclosure
of analytical measure methods,
fighting the scientific literature and have independent
scientific review of modeling inputs and assumptions.
And so, the main comment I have about that today
is just basically that,
I understand I've spent my incurred...
My whole career having to go through few reviews
for just about everything I do.
And just like every other scientist out there,
I've experienced my own share of rejections.
I've had many requests for revision and submission.
I have to fight the literature
and disclose my methods in great detail
to ensure proper review and transparency.
And so, the reason I recommend a similar process
for the scientific component, the wildfire mitigation plan,
isn't because I want you all to suffer with me,
it's because I know, that even though,
it could be a lot of extra work and it's far from perfect
to review is rewarding.
It strengthens the quality work,
it provides trustworthy and reliable information ended up,
what allows scientific information to progress.
So, one of the recommendations was to reduce the price,
for the modeling approaches.
And I know there's some pushback against that.
And so, what I'd like to say about that,
it's not an issue of privacy.
It's that for proprietary nothing,
the algorithms assumptions data input are often a black box.
So, it's impossible to effectively evaluate
their appropriateness and their soundness
for their application.
We don't want to create a burden.
We just want to ensure that the model results
don't produce erroneous information
or guide mitigation measures in ways that are inappropriate
or ineffective, or that even result
in unintentional consequences
that are worse than the status quo.
Not only does this ensure the safety of Americans,
but having accurate and validated appropriate models
should also improve risk spend efficiency,
by getting it right the first time.
So, proprietary models are the only feasible alternative,
we suggest then, if it's close enough information
that it's still allowed a rigorous independent
and objective scientific review.
Finally, the third recommendation that I contributed,
it has to do with vegetation management
and the main thing I'd like to stress about that one,
is that, in terms of vegetation management,
there are inherent trade offs involved.
Considerations include,
labor, hiring qualified arboriculturists.
There's potential for unintentional impact,
ecological systems and services like biodiversity,
carbon, erosion, geological,
and central for unintentional consequences,
like increasing flammability,
wouldn't reduce the fuel load by changing
your moisture due to characteristics of the vegetation.
So, in other words, for fire to start,
it's about accountability.
It's about fire intensity or ember production,
that's more related to fuel load.
So, do you have a need to trade off?
It's important to have the right information
to take the right action.
And there's a lot we don't know on an empirical basis
about how to case manage.
Questions remain like, these certain actions affected me
but it reduced cost or did they actually worsen
the channel of these part?
And in what context did this happened?
Are the costs for us, the benefits?
And so, this lives behind our recommending
formal research study.
And again, in terms of that,
I think that the design and approach would be negotiable.
I think it should be done cooperatively,
so, it's fair.
And it targets the appropriate questions,
using appropriate methods with the minimal amount
of support the person was worth.
And I also think it should be an ongoing process because,
determining effectiveness is refined to certain fire.
It suddenly as large datasets
collected over long time periods,
because that's the only way
that rigorous statistical analysis can be done.
And my final last small comment has to do with our requests
to identify species rather than general.
It's not that we're saying,
somebody needs to identify all the species in the state.
It just means being more specific about
which dominant traits species are identified as at risk.
Because as it is now, if they're gonna say that,
oak species and pine species are at risk,
that means you already have trees
in the entire state forever.
And so, you know, further study,
they did help to determine that it isn't species
that are so important,
but maybe it's just general characteristics
at certain trees or certain species
and drought and environmental context.
So, that summarizes my recommendation.
-: Wow.
I am not going to retread the ground,
as many of you have fraud with my appreciation.
Though I will tell,
you know, at the end of the day,
I am a slightly older system operator.
All of you have
incredible backgrounds and abilities,
and I have been awestruck by some of these information
you've come up with.
Some of the challenges
is we have to get from A to B to C to D,
we can talk about the advantages of D all day long.
Your comments, Board Member Syphard are fabulous.
This is on aggregate,
and I'm kind of starting the discussion
back and forth between all of it.
There's a firearm that took nine years to agree on
because of a lot of dynamics that were in play,
and we got to find the way to cut through
some of that and reach agreement, because it's a push pull.
You know, who's gonna be held to blame?
Who's going to have to fund?
Completely irrespective of the science
there's gonna have to be.
We have to address those other dynamics
that slow down or stop some of these processes.
But I completely agree with your remarks and with that,
ladies and gentlemen, again, I'm not gonna be labor mine.
I want to have a discussion,
if those of you who had made notations
about things you wanted to underscore
or offer a different point of view,
I will, Mr.Mader tell you we're going to adjourn by 4.
So, I have to have to keep those comments under songs, rap,
but do any of you have comments you wanna make?
Or just raise your hand and we'll go there.
It will surprise me if you don't,
because I believe most of you have gotten out your point
in your presentation,
but, Oh my God, it was so impressive.
It's so impressive.
You wouldn't think at my age I would
have this great opportunity.
I know John I'll be right there.
(John laughs)
I wouldn't think I would have such an opportunity to learn
from people, but it has been an amazing exercise for me.
And it has taken me places that...
That my normal mindset might not have gone.
And with that, I would like to recognize Board Member Mader.
-: Thank you, Chair Edwards.
And I...
I just wanted to echo the concept of interrelated expertise,
the names to help us do a better job.
When I started to work on this
Wildfire Safety Advisory Board,
and I knew my fellow board members, you know,
I was able to use my mind to say, you know what?
I can go ahead and concentrate in the areas
that my expertise can help the wildfire, the recommendation,
because for example, Alexandra and Jessica's words.
The kind of information that as an engineer,
in order to implement my recommendation,
that's the kind of information
that engineer is going to need.
Because you're going to need the adequate mapping
and they're gonna need a probability wildfire emissions
based from the different types of topography
with wind speed without weather patterns.
So, those are the schools that we need to have
that are taught the engineers, specific areas of expertise.
I tried to echo that interrelated work,
bacause it makes for a better wildfire
advisory board recommendations for the 2021,
wildfire mitigation plan guidelines.
-: Nope, I am.
I completely agree...
I completely agree it is sometimes a little bit more
to take advice from somebody who's 30 years
younger than you, but would it...
When it's valid advice, when it's intelligent,
when it's rational, then that's what we do.
So, are there are any other hands?
Anyone wants to make sure they get in order?
Yes, Vice Chair Fellman and then Board Member Block.
-: Thank you.
I also want to underscore the evolutionary nature
of our work that, you know, we're old.
Certainly we have as well,
Wildfire Safety Division has done was, you know,
the literature is saying what advanced engineering is doing.
And as we go forward,
we will mention at the end what we're going to have,
this kind of recommendation is to form
of the next round for 2021.
But that's not the end,
but this is an ongoing process,
Board Member Block comments
we're going to reach out different community members,
to pass advice
shortening about.
So, I think what we've done here is there and marked points
forward to have Wildfire Advisory Board.
Thank you.
-: So, thank you Diane Fellman.
You know, she's the one that has your in water.
She's the one that sometimes brokers
some of the critical compromises that are necessary
to move things forward
and she has been the mainstay throughout this.
So,
Board Member Block.
-: Okay, thank you.
And thanks Chair...
Co-chair Fellman for finding out
that diversity outreach rotate.
I ended to mention in my statement also,
and I think
in light of the interest
in the interdisciplinary work,
that also has to do with including as diverse a conversation
as possible throughout our process.
And so, I'm really looking forward to being more directly
engaged with this community that hasn't yet been engaged
in this conversation, but just want to echo that again.
And for anybody listening in, who's interested,
please reach out to me on my website.
I've been doing some work in this area
in other previous projects in my day job.
So, I'll be eager to get started.
I also wanted to make a reference
to one of our engagements with onto my usability experts
over in the board about combining experts
with the utility infrastructures needs.
I'd really like to have more conversations about that.
For those of you who don't know,
or maybe everybody here does know that the seven of us
can't talk amongst ourselves together and be up to date
with what we're all working on at the same time,
'cause these public meetings really discussed together.
The combined goals that I have come out,
thanks to our staff, putting comments together.
So, I'm really eager to see how we can start
talking about risk maps in combination of the environment
and the utility infrastructure together.
I think that's a really in depth conversation
and maybe we should discuss ways we can engage that,
characterizing that and how we move forward
in that recommendation, over the next six months.
-: Excellent.
Alright, I do not see any other hands raised request
to speak on chat and so, I will see you,
I'm gonna entertain a motion to approve
the 2021 recommendation.
-: We made the most prospective 2021 recommendations.
-: By Board Member Armstrong, do I have a second?
-: Board Member Porter, second sir.
-: Thank you, sir.
Aye.
All: Aye.
-: Alright, I ain't (mumbles) at that recommendation tap.
And with that, I'm gonna turn control the meeting
over to Jamie to talk about...
-: Before that occurs, this is...
Chair Edwards I'd like to reserve the right to file
concurrence on our approved guidelines recommendations.
-: Well, I completely agree with this.
Let's get started, I had already had already given out
the name of the board member, obviously to those potential.
And I think that's perfectly fine.
Thank you, sir.
Board Member Mader.
-: I'd also like to reserve the right to file a concurrence.
-: Correct.
Correct, all the board members have that ability
and in particular, John, I'm gonna need a picture.
So, we're gonna need to have a little something.
Alright, seeing no one else who needs to speak,
back to Jamie.
-: Thank you, Chair Edwards.
We have reached the stretch break.
We are at 2:12, we are right on time,
so, I would like to welcome everybody
to your 10 minute stretch break.
If you would please, just turn off your cameras,
get up, jump around, get the blood flowing into your head.
I encourage everyone to shake it up.
Turn off your video, move around, get some water,
doing what you need to do.
We will be back in 10 minutes,
at the end of our stretch break, please be prepared by 2:22
to come back, and turn your cameras back on,
we will get the show back on the road.
Thank you, for this.
Enjoy your stretch break.
And then, Chair Edwards wait 30 seconds and then hit.
-: Alright, thank you very much.
Welcome back to the Wildfire Advisory Board meeting,
and we're gonna move our session to discussing
publicly owned utilities, wildfire mitigation plan.
So, first, no meetings would be complete,
without another turn to hear from the public, be patient,
I could check at Wildfire Safety Advisory Board email box,
Katherine Stockton, do we have any email communication?
-: So, we have one that we received,
but this is related item.
This is from Mr. Eric Ray.
"As a former wild land firefighter
and public information officer,
I would like to see concentrated spending
and a higher priority to removing non native species
that are highly flammable contributors
to wildfires throughout this.
This should be an active state program with any reliance
on home or land owners.
Some of the highly flammable non-natives include,
scotch broom, ripped broom
and others bounds in this 2010 study of California,
dangerous non native vegetation."
And I can... I will forward this to the board
and I will post it on our website.
Excellent.
-: I didn't know. -: Thank you very much.
-: Now you know.
-: I was watching Board Member Block nod
in statically throughout that reading.
So that to me, I quite underscores that commentary.
I could check with our phone operators.
Do we have any public comment on the phone line?
-: We currently have one going on the long
for a question and answer.
-: Thank you very much.
Alright, there's the public comment period.
We are happy to invite Barry Moline
from the California Municipal Utilities Association
to present about the
publicly owned utility wildfire mitigation plans templates.
I do wanna open with a few introductory comments
about unit utility, because it's always,
there's a lack of, not a lack of understanding,
but I think there's sometimes a lack of clarity.
What is the municipality versus an investor facility?
Probably the biggest municipalities do not have investors.
Their investors are their customers.
So, their focus is on rates.
They're very customer centric because their policy bodies
typically sit across the street or two miles away.
They have tremendous impact on
what publicly owned utility do.
Publicly owned utility due to the kind of disparity
or wide variation in size and photography and geography.
They still managed to work very well, together.
It keep a cost effective approach as mentioned,
and that's very important to their rate.
And so, they had developed eight templates
from the wildfire safety activities.
I do wanna underscore the templates almost the point of
where you deviate from.
I mean, they all need to be adjusted to meet both
the geographic climb the area region in California.
But the minutes, I think have demonstrated
a real willingness to work together
and to set the standard for that.
And so,
here's the Executive Director
of the California Municipal Utilities Association,
and I'd like to welcome him to make his presentation.
-: Thank you, Chair Edwards.
It's a pleasure to be here talking to the board.
And, I suppose we can go to the first slide
we can get into the presentation
and
Well, maybe there's a delay, but there's...
This slide is up.
-: I see the one that's entitled publicly owned utilities,
44 POU, that is what I'm looking at, okay?
-: Yeah.
Good.
Well then, that's the first one that hasn't been mentioned.
Great, so, there's...
So, I work at the California Municipal Utility Association
and where the state association
that represents the publicly owned utilities in the state,
as well as, public water agencies in the state
and tend to...
For water, we tend to represent the larger agencies,
our members serve about 70% of the water that's delivered
in the state.
For electricity, about 25% of the electricity
is from a publicly owned utility.
And there's 44 utilities, 42 of them have facilities
that is generation transmission distribution.
And they're the ones that are submitting
wildfire mitigation plans.
Two public utilities are wholesale only agencies
Southern California, our authority and MSR,
they buy and sell power on behalf of a smaller utility.
So, the POU has recalled continued welfare management plans,
according to strategy on gender first,
and those were approved by their local governing boards.
And, we are currently in the process of submitting
all those plans to this board by July 1.
And, I checked this morning also,
my report this morning,
the...
All reports, it looks like they're gonna be submitted today,
but obviously we have a few more days
of returning them in a little early.
So, hopefully everybody's in by the day.
Next slide please.
So, we've been involved in this process of...
Of identifying the High Fire-Threat District for many years.
And, we're eager obviously to continue to do that.
We are actually obligated along with the...
The CPUC
to engage and look at the maps
as a grand real granular level in each of our communities
to get at the maps,
the data sort of on a block by block basis
and determine if anything has changed over time,
if the map is accurate
and then get that information back to the CPUC.
So, we've been very actively engaged in this process,
working with our local fire officials,
which are generally parts of our local government.
So, involved in the start and we're eager to stay involved
in that process, as the...
As the High Fire-Threat District are...
Those maps are updated over time.
Next slide, please.
So, let's talk a bit about the templates.
First, we have a group within our association
called the wildfire working group,
and this is a group of our members that meet
every 2 weeks via conference call.
And, it's composed of that list of...
Of the kinds of
people and job responsibilities
that you see there.
It's a wide variety of people.
Next slide, please.
So, we...
So, what are the good ideas, you know, to be included
based on all this information that we put together?
In plan,
that should be because we followed strategy very closely.
And I wanna make sure that everything
that I'm doing as a utility, you know, is covered.
So,
there was a variety of uses of the template,
and you'll see that in the plans
that are submitted to the board.
Next slide.
So, in the conversation about
developing a template or idea for,
you know, one of the things that we see
going forward is that we would like to continue to
share information, talk about best practices,
good practices, practices differ by region.
But nevertheless,
when I share ideas about what works
and also things that don't work,
you know, we tried something
and maybe it wasn't the best way to move forward,
we want to hear about those things as well.
And we're eager to hear the boards
and see the board's review of our wildfire mitigation plan.
So, we know that within probably a month
as we move forward and think about the possibility
of developing a template, you know,
thinking would it be a useful practice.
The first question is,
we have to define what a template is.
Our template is a narrative.
You can take that template and put in a utility name,
make adjustments to what they're doing,
but there's narrative in there.
And, you know, we have to ask the question,
do we want something like that?
Or do we want something that is closer to an outline
of what the board would like to see?
Maybe there's some other format.
So, it will lead us to define what we're looking for.
Our second is,
is the timing, you should know how it fits into
the board process plans are going to be reviewed
and updated annually, and of course,
there's the conference review every three years.
It takes an agency about 6 to 9 months
to complete a wildfire mitigation plan.
So, as we...
If we wanna consider developing a template or an outline,
a WMP that fits into the process of incorporating
the board's feedback, future plan.
So, I think that's doable.
You just wanna be considerate of the timing.
Next we'll look at budgeting concepts.
And that is, Publicly Owned Utility budget
for the completion of plan.
Some may do it completely internally,
but a fair number of them use outside consultants,
as well as, hiring an evaluator.
And, that is part of the budgeting process
that takes place in municipal government,
knowing 6 months to a year in advance of...
Of a regulatory requirement.
So, we wanna make sure that we have enough time
to budget properly, so that we can achieve a plan
that might be reflective of...
Of different outline of structure.
And then finally,
I just wanna put this on the table and that is that,
we would have the ability in our association to create
something that might look like a table.
I have a graphic here of a table.
It's not a particular table,
it's just that I got it off, you know, online.
But the idea of creating a spreadsheet
that allows a viewer to look at the variety of elements,
a little of our mitigation plan.
So, across the board is a variety of agencies
all at once, in one table.
And, you know, so we...
That's a concept that we're open to discussing
preparing a summary table that looks at
all of the public utilities plan.
So, allows for easy view or a view of the elements
of the various plan.
So, that concludes my presentation.
And, I look forward to your questions and comments.
-: Yeah, well, I would like to do,
and for those of you who are not familiar,
or perhaps you're familiar with the Brown Act,
which constraints for board members
who can't talk to one another,
but in the state level they call it Berkeley Keen.
And we ended up being spilled into Berkeley Keen group.
And my fellow members in that group
are Vice Chair Diane Fellman and Board Member Porter.
So, I would like to entertain any comments
from the two of them, and then I will open it up
to the balance of the board members
if they have questions for Barry.
-: Well, Chair Edwards.
Yeah, I would like to thank the Executive Director
Moline for the presentation.
That will be extremely helpful.
And, because we are assuming in a budding up
against the deadline, which is July 1st,
which is next week, this Wednesday.
And of course,
because of our particular statutory obligation
to issue and develop opinions from these mitigation plans.
I'd like to say that, we're open to developing a process,
possibly you utilizing this template at some point
to finalize how we come up with our opinions.
And, I like to communicate that, as we've said before,
we don't believe that it would be responsible
if we didn't consider each clear units,
unique characteristics, their geographical location,
where they sit and in the High Fire Districts,
understanding that smart and LAPWP are not a banning in...
In Anaheim.
With that... Taking that into consideration,
we wanna have an open invitation to specific or
a group of POUs to talk to.
So, that they can better clarify
their unique characteristics,
so, that we can better online them
in the scale of how we can help them.
Our goal is to find ways to solve their problems,
we understand that they have budgetary constraints,
manpower issues, a lot of different things,
getting enough qualified and trained individuals
to fulfill those of WMP goals.
So, we would like to put out that invitation to them.
We'd like to invite them to contact us.
We are easy to find.
We, also wanna continue the dialogue with CMUA.
Definitely, so, it's been a very productive
conversation so far.
And, it gives you an idea of basically the timeline
where I think that we should be able to report out
to the full board,
the timeline take into consideration the understanding that,
it's about 6 to 9 months to make any... Any
recommendations or opinion
come to fruition.
We're thinking about beginning of all mid fall
to report out.
And, if that's too soon or too late,
I open it up to any discussion that...
-: Yeah, I do wanna make sure that Vice Chair Fellman
has an opportunity.
Go ahead ma'am, I'm sorry, that's on you.
-: Okay.
I enjoyed Board Member Porter's comments
and I have nothing to add.
I just look forward to working with this
sector of the power and...
So, we have our challenges before us,
but so far we've been really...
I've been really pleased and I was telling him,
I hope the publicly on utility is still the same.
So, thank you.
-: Alright, do we have any additional comments
or questions on the part of board members?
Alright, hearing none.
They're reviewing, so what I would suggest is
one of the points, again, this isn't for me,
it's to ensure greater IOULU transparency,
kind of early in the day.
I understand they are competitively based organizations.
And of course, it's more challenging for them to share data,
but I think the development of your templates,
some of the, you know, the cooperative attitude
across the days, I think we could probably accomplish that.
So, I wanna thank you very much for attending today
and for making your presentation.
Thank you again.
Oh, hang on.
-: Thank you.
-: I just wanted to confirm that we've received the 42
wildfire mitigation plans, and we're gonna expect nine more.
-: Very nice afternoon's reading, thank you very much.
-: Cheers.
-: Alright.
Now, of course my notes there,
I wait 30 seconds for slide 22 to show up.
Is it gonna be 30 seconds?
We're gonna discuss this at no point.
Alright.
The CMUA's Mission and Vision that now,
we're moving into the next agenda item.
I feel like a standup comedian.
I feel that still there's time with something entertaining
while we wait for technology to catch up.
Alright.
Well, I'm gonna forecast what we're gonna talk about
while technology catches up.
Our next agenda item,
Wildfire Safety Advisory Board would like to invite
the Wildfire Safety Division, Director Thomas Jacob,
who has by the way, done a yeoman's job
in an incredibly short period of time.
And, I want people to be aware, you know,
we had to coordinate our expertise,
we had to dovetail her recommendation.
She had to create a division
in let's just say a really bureaucratic environment
and she's done an incredible job.
So, we were asked,
that Wildfire Safety Advisory Board provided input
on the draft Wildfire Safety Division strategic plan.
Thank you, first of all for asking that.
And, Oh my God, Caroline,
I have to do public comment one more time.
'Cause I haven't done it enough today.
So, bear with me.
Okay.
The Wildfire Advisory Board email box,
Catherine, do we have any email?
-: No emails.
-: Oh, thanks.
Alright, let's check with our phone operator,
do we have any public comment on the phone line?
-: We do have one public comment.
Kevin Collins, your line is open.
-: Mr.Collins welcome.
-: Thank you and we're falling out of with each other
and so, it's difficult to...
Hello?
-: We hear you.
-: Okay, alright.
I'll try to keep my comments brief,
I realize I have 3 minutes at most.
So, I submitted a safety complaints to the Commission,
the Public Utilities Commission 2018.
And then that complaint
I address the problem of down to acting conductors.
In other words,
before energized wires that are responsible
for a lot of the wildfire ignitions.
I looked into the
international electrical engineering market
and found that there were,
a number of solutions available from
several international electrical engineering companies.
In other words, there is equipment available today
on the shelf for sale that can detect a broken conductor
and quickly, very rapidly shut down the power
to that circuit.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because,
I anticipated that complaint would be dismissed
and it was under the pretense that
the wildfire mitigation plan proceeding would
subsume my complaint and it would be rendered irrelevant.
Now, the issue of technology has never really arisen
to being able (static distort audio) really discussed
by either the Commission or the IOUs,
they dodge around about what they referred to as
emerging tech technology and so forth.
But the extent to which the general orders,
these are the construction standards for the utilities
to build, say substations.
So, there's a general loader for overhead wiring.
These general orders are incredibly out of date,
for instance, general loader 95,
which are the construction standard overhead wiring.
It doesn't say a word about fuses.
It says nothing about reclosers.
It's silent on conductors.
It's legal to use 6 gauge wire throughout California,
including in tall forest,
such as the one I lived, 6 gauge wire
is roughly a 10th of an inch in diameter.
There's,
roughly 2700 Circuit miles of this wire
in the High Fire-Threat Districts of
PGE service territory alone.
So, it's one thing to jump ahead
and have all these discussions about our mitigation plans.
But I'd like everybody to understand
that the source of this problem
lies with the construction standards that are fundamental
to the obligation of the Public Utilities Commission.
They write those standards, theoretically,
I mean, they're actually by the IOUs, but the...
The notion is that the standards come from
the Public Utilities Commission
and this problem will never be resolved
until the construction standards for overhead circuits
are updated to modern standards.
And, there are really isn't a whole lot more
to say about this.
It's one thing to set PGE list to knock down
a million, 250,000 trees under the pretense.
That's somehow gonna stop wildfire ignitions
or to flatten Chaparral and rip it out
and replace it with grass.
This is not really a coherent process in my opinion,
I will continue following it
because I would love to spend so much of my time to it.
But I hope that this advisory body,
looks back at the construction standards
for overhead surrogates that are
controlled by the Public Utilities Commission.
'Cause that is a source.
That's the underlying origin of this problem.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Mr.Collins.
I would note,
you have not only the entire board for safety board reports,
paying attention to your comments,
we also have a board of Wildfire Safety Division.
So, we appreciate your feedback.
Do we have anybody else on the phone?
-: I have no additional comments for this topic.
-: Alright, I'll take all of these feedback
and these posted public comments.
Okay.
Now that we have...
We will move to the Wildfire Safety Division,
Director Thomas Jacobs to share the...
Our safety division strategic plan with us.
Thank you, Caroline, for making yourself available
to participate with us today, we appreciate it.
-: Thank you, Chair Edwards and good afternoon.
I really appreciate the opportunity
to speak with all of these decks on our dock
until the wildfire mitigation strategy and roadmap.
And just a compliment of the public comments coming out,
we just spoke, you know,
definitely hear you appreciate the comments
and the comments you texted, you mentioned,
and we'll certainly look into that.
So, I appreciate you taking the time to be on today's call
and speak up.
So first, I wanted to thank the board for the discussion
earlier in the meeting on the 2021 recommendations,
I appreciated listening to the discussion and the comments
that the board members had before the formal proceeding
recommendations from the board,
now that they appreciate all that.
Back to the strategy,
with a sighting of bill 1054 and law 11
before the law division was established,
we established ourselves in January of this year.
Those working on utility wildfire safety recognized
the need to better understand the current landscape
in California, as it really seems to any related wildfires,
and learn from the global industry practices to inform
development of possible approach,
to how we mature California is effort to reduce
totally related water risk.
To tackle this, the condition engagement consultant
to coordinate development of vision strategy
and implementation roadmap
reducing utility related wildfire risk,
ultimately guide the development
of the Wildfire Safety Division.
First of, you knew this had to be developed
in collaboration with our strategy partners
who also have a direct role on firm mitigation effort.
Steering committee
to facilitate the development of the strategies,
the steering committee, which is still active today,
we found great value in that steering committee
to provide a coordinating body for all things,
utility wildfire related.
This simply includes CAL FIRE
we kindly ask the county Commission,
California air resources board,
the Governor's office of planning and research,
the California Natural Resources Agency
and the forest management task force.
So, all of those agencies participated in the development
of the strategy and road map.
Once Wildfire Safety Division was established
and we formerly became established in January this year,
the division can lead in finalizing the strategy
and road map with the steering committee.
The priority in the development of the strategy
was balancing near term vacation activities
that make each bottle far less harmful to the public
with activities focus on longterm systemic risk reduction.
To help achieve this equilibrium we established 4 principles
to guide those long term strategy for the division.
First, active collaboration.
Second, maintaining a low active end of the day,
these bars happen at a local focus,
long term resilience.
And then lastly, risking from data supported decisions
as board member,
the critical use data for Eric (static distort audio).
To work towards these four principles
in the context of utility related wildfire,
we established what composed the vision for the division.
It's an operational vision
to create a sustainable California
with no catastrophic utility related wildfires
that has access to safe, affordable,
and reliable electricity.
In an effort to take action a day
towards that proposed vision.
The division has identified four priority actions
that we've been actively pursuing
since we were established in January.
First, we significantly in collaboration with mission
revise the 2020 wildfire mitigation plan process,
including the guidelines
and added a wildfire mitigation maturity model
that focuses on understanding utility wildfire risks
and drive continued improvement.
Second, performance metrics.
We establish performance metrics to track
and assess utility projects with performance
against outcomes over time.
Third, cooperate use of this modeling and analysis to
assess resource allocation decisions.
And finally, Data Analytics.
We developed implementing a data strategy
to enable information sharing across all the stakeholders,
and support evaluation of the wildfire mitigation plan
and drive Houston analytics,
in supporting prevention, response and recovery activities.
While the four actions above are a critical first step,
the strategy recognizes as the division
and utilities must work collaboratively
with others to successfully achieve this proposed vision.
Those areas for collaboration center on the processes,
tools and capabilities necessary
to support mitigation efforts for a long term strategy,
think was governance and coordination, culture and behavior,
applied science technology and data
and workforce development.
Lack of a strategy to find 6 objectives
against which we measure the performance of the strategy
and keep us focused on driving reduction
and utility really above or at risk.
The first and honestly the one that I looked
as the most important is respectfully viewed STDs
related to wildfire mitigation activities,
ensuring that our communities can live
without fear of the next wildfire is core
to wildfire mitigation.
And zero deaths to the only acceptable safety objective,
when we had 170 people die from wildfires
in the past 10 years.
Second property,
we have to reduce the losses to structures
and critical infrastructure from utility related wildfires.
Wow, third, natural resources while supporting,
reaching on sustainable forest watersheds and communities.
We have to do all of this while maintaining reliability,
limiting planned and unplanned outages
that utility relieves wildfire mitigation activities,
maintaining affordability, ensuring that utilities
prioritize and they prove wildfire mitigation investments.
And lastly,
acknowledging an action and ensuring that
utility wildfire mitigation activities,
also advance on the change goals.
These objectives will guide us towards a longer term vision
and for further conversations between
divisions, utilities, Commission, and other stakeholders,
as we work towards making meaningful progress
on reducing wildfire risk.
The strategy is a foundational document
on which the division is building our operating model,
including the policy procedures and protocols
through which the data will drive reduction in utility
related wildfire risks.
Specifically this strategy and moved back and forth,
but continued division development,
as we spend the next 12 months
executing our responsibilities
and preparing to transition to the office
of Energy Infrastructure Safety by July 1, 2021.
We are second comments on the strategy
and road map for June 30th,
and we'll be incorporating this into a final strategy
and road map this summer.
I look forward to seeing the board's comments,
thank you for your time and consideration
of our proposed strategy roadmap.
With that I'd be happy to tackle any questions you have.
Thank you.
-: Wow.
Thank you, Director Edwards.
That was very well informed.
I do wanna make sure we have an opening, either
Board Member Porter, Board member Block,
and obviously everyone else.
Well that's...
I know these are areas that they are particular.
Board Member Block what do you think?
-: I was super-duper excited to read the data strategy
and then the rest of the strategy documents.
-: I'm a super-duper, that works for me.
-: I hope we can turn that into a more professional term,
I was so thrilled in such great reveal,
I think it's the data privacy in particular,
on example of defining how we build that structure
and build a place for data standards to inform metrics
and targeted and transparent way...
Ensure that ultra sensitive data is being informed
only that at the right level.
And then, of all the work that you're doing,
I just wanna say publicly that
standardization of data does not imply,
standardized regulation and
the more transparent the data and processes,
the more we can effectively manage,
I just wanted to say that in support of all the work
that you're doing.
And those are all of my comments at the moment.
So, thanks for everything that you're doing.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Board Member Block.
I wanna make sure Board Member Alexandra,
has a chance to weigh in here.
-: Yeah, sure.
I guess I also wanna say that
I thought this was an excellent document.
I'm strongly in support of the overall philosophy.
I think, it goes a lot of what the safety advisory board
has been saying.
So, I think it's...
You know, I think there's a lot of synergy going on there.
I think the vision is ambitious, but I think it's realistic
and hopefully it's got the potential to really drive
some innovation and change.
So, the only comments I made
and I sent some to you personally
had to do with just the background scientific information.
And, some of that was just providing some up to date,
scientific references
and being a little bit more inclusive scientifically.
For us, of course, you know,
really critical part of California natural heritage,
and they're really critical ecologically
and a complaint of diversity.
But I just also wanted to add that
conifer forest make up 25% of the state,
and if you add Woodlands, you add,
you know, another to make up about 40% of the state,
but more than 60% of the state is actually
non forest to shrubland and grasslands.
And, this is where a lot of the wind-driven fires
have resulted in structure losses in the past.
It's also where most of the threatened
and endangered species are.
So, just sort of a recommendation to include
the other vegetative system
in the background.
Any other question to do with some nuances about climate?
We spent a lot of research on fire climate relationships,
and
it's interesting because climate
will likely affect fire activity directly
and only certain parts of the state,
such as the forest.
But in other parts of the state,
the effect really is likely to only be indirect
through things like drought for vegetation change
and those areas, the human influence is super important.
Humans are drastically altering fire activity
and in some cases they completely override
the effects of climate.
So, it's also just to,
you know, just acknowledge some of those forces
that come into play as well.
You know, otherwise I think it's just...
It's straight on and I'm in full support of...
Of the whole document.
So, thank you.
-: Thank you.
I wanna make sure any board members do have questions,
or the director have an opportunity as well.
Alright, excellent.
Now, we're going to seat on her staff
because we not only got enough to her.
Okay, let's see.
Oh, wait 30 seconds for the techs to catch up.
Are we there?
Come on, you must be there by now.
Okay, well, again, I will forecast.
Thank you again, Caroline.
Alright.
So, welcome to Melissa and Chris,
from the Wildfire Safety Division for joining us
and present to us about what's going on
in the division today, as opposed to the future strategy.
I'm not sure, how we'll be there,
and I know you're trying to comfort your remarks now,
to make sure you don't step on your boss,
which is a good thing.
So, let's make sure they're on his phone and visible.
Melissa, are you there?
Oh, here you are.
-: Let me unmute myself out here, yeah.
-: Yeah, well, I'd had that problem all day long.
Okay.
Melissa, why don't you go ahead.
-: Okay.
First of all, thank you for having us here today,
and I'm going to go through a few slides,
I have them up on my screen as well.
So, I'll just say,
to switch to the next slide when it's time,
which we can go ahead and switch to the next slide.
And if I see getting out of track,
I'll make sure I slow down.
What I wanted to do today was revisit the other side,
so, to speak.
So, when we first came to speak to you many months ago,
the star that's on this slide was back in the beginning.
We were in the process creating our new guidelines,
releasing them to the public and starting the entire
wildfire mitigation plan review process.
As of today, we have ratified...
The Commission has ratified all of the resolutions
that we put forward with the exception of
one related to bear Valley electric service,
which I'll explain about a bit further.
And, we are now entering into our next phase,
which is the implementation and learning phase
where we're looking at what we learned
from the process so far,
how we can improve upon it for next year,
and of course, taking into account.
With that will be the comments
that you all are putting forward
are related to the 2021 metrics and guidelines
as we move forward into the 2021 plan.
Next slide.
-: Waiting for her to catch up.
There we go.
-: So, the guidelines that we released
is taking us back to the beginning to review
where we've gone this year.
The objectives for the guidelines that we released this year
were threefold.
One was to increase standardization
among the submissions of utilities wildfire mitigation plan.
Until proved objectivity by having a systematic,
excuse me, in uniform review of the quantitative
and qualitative information.
And again, to have a forward looking focus.
And that's what Director Thomas Jacobs was focusing on
with the maturity model to make sure
that we're moving utilities forward on a continuous basis,
year over year, towards the goal of reducing
wildfire impacts by utilities.
Next slide.
Our review of the WMPs this year focused on four factors.
The first was completeness.
The second was technically feasible and effective
in reducing wildfire risk.
-: The third was looking at a new sheet
just to make sure there was efficient use of resources.
And the fourth as mentioned before,
was make sure that the plans that you put forward
were sufficiently forward looking
and that they had addition for growth.
Next slide.
The evaluation team this year consisted of 27 members,
we had 18 subject matter writing
and project management experts from across the CPUC.
And we were assisted in our review
by 9 subject matter experts from CAL FIRE.
So, I want to emphasize
what a collaborative process this was,
how much we relied upon expertise
from across the Commission and from CAL FIRE,
and how valuable the...
All of this work to getting VR
and my hats off to all day,
but just my hats off to dissipate.
And we couldn't have done it without each person
who was part of this team, who came together quite quickly,
given the 90 days that we had reviewed the plan.
Next slide.
In part of evaluation we looked at the plan,
with an eye, either approving,
approving with Commission or in the term a denial
in the case that they're valid termination and elegance,
take that in a moment.
But the vast majority of the rest of the plans
be approved there whilst our litigation plans
with conditions.
With the exception of
the Independent Transmission Operators,
which we approved fully.
When we looked through the plan,
we evaluated them in terms of deficiency.
What we saw was the thing
and conditions to remedy those deficiencies.
So, approving with conditions means we found a deficiency
and we put in place to remedy that deficiency.
The deficiencies were categorized a free class,
a class A deficiency aspect of the plan is lacking or flawed
to resolve, I say deficiency, but utilities
provide a reveal compliance plan
within 45 days of gratification.
So, 45 days as from June 11th of this year.
Class B deficiency,
insufficient detail or justification
provided in the wildfire mitigation plan,
and to resolve a class B deficiency
utility must submit eight quarterly report
that April passed a resolution within 90 days.
And finally,
class C deficiency means there are gaps in baseline
for historical data.
And those defficiencies are going to resolve
within the 2021 plans, their updates that they submit.
Next slide.
This slide is meant to provide you an overview
of some of the themes that we found
across all of the wildfire mitigation plans.
These are the areas
that we're going to be looking at moving forward,
our particular focus going forward,
we'll be highlighting here.
And of course, some of these areas that will be familiar
because of the same areas that in the board provided
and their feedback on the plan
of some of the areas that were missing.
So overall, we found a little discussion
of how the models assess the consequences
of a given ignition and how the outputs were leveraged
for decision making.
So, we wanted to see more robust risk assessment
and mapping.
It was unclear how the WMPs significantly leveraged
the initiatives to reduce risk in terms of admissions
and PSPS events.
We'll look on the PSPS and unclear how the WMP
is particularly in vegetation management and hardening work
will quantify lead reduce the scale of PSPS events.
By increasing the wind thresholds.
Overall, there are constraints that were found
in vegetation management in terms of
being able to find the adequate staff,
you undertake vegetation management efforts.
And across these three large utilities,
we found little to no analysis presented to how,
as far as how it hands vegetation management programs
reduce technicians overall,
and we asked for more information about that.
And areas of weakness across the plan
was related to this suspend deficiency.
And they did not sufficiently demonstrate
that they're allocating, provided resources they have,
that's effectively reduce wildfire risk and PSPS.
And finally timelines.
We want to be able to hold our utilities in compliance
with their timelines.
And we wanted to see more information about
all the stuff they were going to taking in terms of
moving forward on their mitigation efforts.
So, that's not to say that these were absent
completely in their plan.
It's just, these are the areas where,
we want to be driving forward, and we want to,
you know, be looking more closely
and working collaboratively for in these areas.
Next slide, please.
What I'll do now,
I'll just quickly run through each of the resolutions.
The way we formatted our evaluation this year
was we had a guidance resolution,
that provided overarching themes
that we found across the plans,
and then individual resolutions for each utility.
For the guidance solution, we had one class A deficiency,
which was about lack of risk modeling
to inform decision making
and asked for more information about that,
10 class B deficiencies and one class C deficiency.
And as noted before, coming to the three large I'll use,
but not to all of the other utilities 'cause,
we required them to demonstrate,
to provide additional information,
to demonstrate the effectiveness of increased
vegetation management clearances,
or enhanced vegetation management.
Next slide.
Here, we have a summary.
But the largest, these are probably small for you all.
We'll provide summary information
for the three large investor owned utilities
and then the 3 smaller multijurisdictional.
Overall across utilities,
we found that the plans met minimum requirements,
and there are areas of concern,
I had some selected, one's here that I put forward,
but these of course are not exhaustive
of all the areas of concern.
For PGE there were 7 class A deficiencies,
those are, of course, in addition to the ones
in the guidance resolution which are also binding for them,
20 class B deficiencies and 2 class C deficiencies.
For Edison,
we had some trouble seeing my slide bleeds 8.
Class A deficiencies.
Okay, 3 class A deficiencies,
18 class B deficiencies and one class C.
And then for San Diego,
one class A, 14 class B, and one class C.
And, we provided information, of course,
in the resolution for how...
For explaining what the deficiencies are
and how they can ramp it up deficiencies.
Next slide, please.
So, for Liberty PacifiCorp and Bear Valley
for Liberty and PacifiCorp will be found
that the plans met minimum requirements
and they are making good either efforts to prevent risk,
given that they have an exemption to date
from the Commission's S map and ramp requirements
or risk requirements.
There are class A deficiencies for Liberty
and also PacifiCorp, four class B to Liberty,
one class C, and again, five class B for PacifiCorp
and two class C.
For Bear Valley, we did not render this determination
on Bear Valley.
We had put out a draft resolutions,
however, on Bear Valley submitted errata on may 22nd,
that just actually altered the contents of their plan.
And so, as a result of that,
we have a 2 meeting holes as of right now
on the Commission agenda.
And again,
the impact on their plan or that overall plan,
spend decreased from 247 million to 46 million.
So, it's substantial change in their plan
as a result of their update.
And so, we are moving forward as far as how to proceed
to look at that plan going forward.
Next slide.
And finally, for the Independent Transmission Owners
that Trans Bay Cable and Horizon West Transmission,
these are the only plans that we approve without conditions.
So, they have a full approval.
Based on comments,
the only area of concern is that Horizon West,
a primary objective or primary initiative
that they relied on for their wildfire mitigation
is an undergrounding and a portion of line.
And, that undergrounding project is facing delays,
and so, that is something that we're looking into.
But otherwise, plans were approved without conditions.
And that, just the high level overview
that I had to provide for you today,
I'm happy to dive into any more detail
or answer any questions,
but that brings you to where we are today,
which is essentially moving forward with the conditions
and remedying deficiencies and other support to 2021.
Thank you.
-: Melissa I have a quick question.
Is there...
I don't know what to explain this,
degree of difficulty associated with the deficiencies,
that there's a means of prioritization,
or they just list them all?
I'm just... I'm confused.
-: As far as how they show up in resolutions,
or as far as... -: Yeah, I mean if you had,
you know, 10 cents and you'd only fixed 2,
is there any indication of(static distort audio)
prioritization of your recommendation?
-: Yeah, and that's why we divided them into the classes.
So, the class A or what we consider to be the most serious
that require immediate books, you know, we need look further
and that we need to dive in deeper.
And so, that's where we... Why we have a 45 days,
they have to submit or remedial compliance plan
for how they're going to resolve
those sorts of deficiencies.
So, an example would be that enhanced vegetation management.
It's not necessarily,
that the utility is going to be able to show us in 45 days
in resolution to that, but they need to submit a plan
for how they're going to show,
what we see as lacking in terms of
the efficacy of enhanced vegetation management
for reducing wildfire ignition.
So, that's an example.
And then class B and then class C, you know,
it's something that we can address in 2021.
-: Okay.
I wanna make sure any of the board members have any
comments on Melissa's talk.
Mr Nader I cannot believe I see your hand in the air.
-: There it is.
-: Please, be flexible.
I am simply eating him because
he truly is a technical genius in his way.
So, John please go ahead.
-: Well, thank you, Chair Edwards.
I'm just an engineer, but yeah.
Thank you, Melissa.
I think that it... I'd like to call
your attention back to our recommendations today
and also our recommendations on the 2020,
the guideline or WMP submitted by the IOU.
In the guide...
In those recommendations on the 2020,
we also identified that there was a lack of
transparency or lack of
explanation of how
hardening could also relate to both
one wildfire risk reduction and the prevalence
and the amount of that reduction.
But also, we've resolved in the reduction
of the reliance on PSPS events.
And, today in our adopted recommendation,
I think you'll find in 2.1 and 4.2 combined together
as my comments value based comments earlier,
go to exactly that, which is,
you know, how are you going to quantify the risk reduction,
both from wildfire, but also from a related to PSPS,
which should be treated as a risk in of itself.
You know, it's not a desirable state
shut down the power to the customers.
That's not something that we're looking for.
We're looking for something else,
which is risk reduction and being able to reduce PSPS event.
And so, those two combined together,
are a concept on how we could actually
start to quantify those
and be able to provide the guidelines.
Today, I will use the kind of spend deficiency
to combine those two goals together
and through the allocation of resources as informed,
by risk reduction achieved by these mitigation projects,
to be able to operate the system safely
at higher wind speeds in their current operator.
So, I think that we have identified together.
I would note that one of the utilities
when in the 2020 wildfire mitigation plan presentation,
they had noted how they were going to reduce
the number of events related to switching and moving load
and puts his own other management managers.
Not a single minute with dedicated to the amount of PSPS
that would be appointed because
there'd been a medication project applied to those...
Any of those seconds.
So, yeah, there's...
There's definitely a place that we can address this.
I look forward to working with the Wildfire Safety Division.
We can help add, we have identified a common interest
and it was the areas that we think that
we can help the investor-owned utility perform better,
to be able to deliver more resources or more benefit
to the...
To their customers for the same amount of resources.
-: Thank you, and to respond to that,
loud and clear we heard you
and we started looking concerned, as you know.
I do wanna highlight that
for very much related to one of the things
that you just raised with.
That We did say that deficiency
could not be used as a tool to justify PSPS
because, of course, it comes out as a winner (laughing)
in terms of how it's currently being calculated,
because it currently does not take into effect
or into account the effects on the public.
So, we share your concerns
and look forward to working together on that going forward.
-: Excellent, do we have any more questions
or comments from the board?
Alright, no one.
We'll say thanks so much for the depth of your presentation,
it's very much appreciated.
I see Chris is setting up on deck,
I don't want to interrupt you to talk about this
but (laughs) thank you.
You can do your best, go ahead.
Chris you may build in.
-: Alright, there I go,
I'll just represent up myself on through review
and take it away.
So,
I just gonna go through fairly quickly,
as you said,
director, again, Melissa went through,
you know, very exhaustively talking to focus
just on what our friends and working on.
Basically with all the work at.
We are, our focus is to (mumbles)
Are these electrical corporations accountable
for all the promises made in there
and also, give as much feedback
as we can to the advisory board and other stakeholders,
including on what's working, what's not working
and where there could be a very specific improvement
in future.
I really appreciate the advice and recommendations
that word provided to a lot of the issues
I ran into asking the question of
how do we fold the utilities accountable
with the WMP as written?
You know,
the team did a great job making them much better
than they were, which I proposed, but as you identified,
there was some ways to go.
So, just wanted to go through my quick talking points,
the group questions.
We talked about, keeping the evaluator
before the public comment three for
the process for developing the independent evaluator
and indeed on that sheet.
And since I'm already doing the comments received
and coordinated internally,
there was some confusion on issues.
It was receiving comments on sort of the general process.
And we were asking for comments on
general areas did not get setbacks.
We did not want to say we're putting a very,
very biopic detail on everything we want.
These guys used to do for content,
that'll go on qualifications.
What we're looking at,
the qualifications of these...
These parties, but there's also a bit of confusion
because if you've noticed in the code,
there are three different independent evaluators
that are different entities and of the public,
they can confused on that one.
So, You know, previously in anything that seems
all recommendations for legislative clean up
so, that they talked about being defended
by where there's, how you use.
We'll have EA independent drive,
they're getting higher and higher and then additional ones
or that just focused on financial issues.
So, just say not conflate all the people.
Second, will continue to work on our reviews
as part of the finance report
that are coming from for coal corporation.
One of the challenges was the other thing is identified for
cleanup is that the electrical corporation,
they crack and report on an annual basis.
January to December, the mitigation plans
are right now about the June,
there's a question whether that will give you
June in one year as a compliance period,
or if I compliance period is from June,
whatever, when the times get approved to a year in June,
when the end of that 3 year period.
So, we're working on those questions,
but until we get back clarified a little bit
looking at what the utilities are doing versus
what they paid for and the plans,
it takes a little bit of work
because they are on different time frame.
So, we're working on that to make sure that we can
keep them on task.
So,
on the things you guys probably are
most interested in,
we started field inspections on the Fort.
We developed, standard operating procedures to work
safely under the COVID-19
risks.
And we're able to get our staff out in the field,
you know, on a weekly basis since May 4th.
And we completed over 700 inspection activities
just in the TGV territory,
because that's where we pumped this
because of a lot of other issues.
And, because of COVID issues,
I did not, well, it's been flying or,
you know, providing places.
So, we just refocused initially you need focus, right?
And then we're moving out.
When I thought about checking the activity,
just to be clear,
that is not actually been in a field where
the teeth by looking at and reward different activities.
But these are different ones where, all those,
you know, more than 700,
133 of those were hardening work
121 of those were in vegetation management,
130 were PSPS vegetation.
And we also,
not specifically looking for these that we...
While we're on site, if we see any obvious
of 95 defects or issues, we'll look at that.
So, we did about 3 of them, 3 online, 5 inspection.
We're not paying that,
if we do a section of an area that is completely signed off
for 2, go 95, that's not a specialty.
It's just, you're really looking at the obvious things
and reporting those back.
If you also making sure that
other division Commission understand those we missed,
we basically found 36 defect, inspection,
which really communicates for residents
that these facts are
ranging from birth to death.
Some conductors dry wires,
that have the insulator touching, you know,
about the insulator you...
What type of damage or other
obvious damage put a post or just some poles,
15 off couple stage or other identifiers as far as...
-: Hey Chris, can I interrupt you with a quick question?
-: Oh, please.
-: What are the qualifications of the people
that are out there doing the inspections?
Who are they?
-: Oh, I'm sorry, I should have started with that.
That is my compliance team.
It's a mix of utility engineers
and others provided wage sectors submitted.
Basically, these are the classification
of utility engineers, seniors engineer,
primarily on bringing on more environmental,
like at the vegetation management forestry experience where
we're bringing out on some already.
So, what we tend to do is use photograph and communications,
so, that if one of my effectors
who my seniors utility engineer with
years of experience on looking at infrastructure,
is an issue that is a big issue related
to other team members that they can call,
share pictures and give them information on
the enhance efficient management side.
So, but that's...
Those are the things we have now.
These are the people that are on the compliance piece,
doing audits.
We also, have brought on the...
What we're calling the appliances sprint contractor which
in the regulation was the independent evaluator that,
the welfare state division was allowed to hire
to help us put the inspection.
And, that team is a mix of engineers, wise men,
and vegetation specialists
who can argument the expertise on my team
to do special inspections.
Also, they have some equipment relied on
and other drone technology
available that they can use,
'cause we don't have access to it in my team.
Does that answer your question?
-: Thank you very much.
-: And so, we just started doing
work in Edison and it's CBD overlap.
So, we're...
We're standing out because in our time focused on
and first up that we'll be able to be closer to the work,
charged for it so that we can have sort of more
inspection time versus windshield time on that.
So, what we did in that initial work,
we have already had some lessons learned,
which we've been working with utilities and it turn way on.
And it really comes down to a lot of things
that Melissa and her team already have been addressing,
which is the need for the information
from the electrical corporations,
not just with each other, but you're system with the data
just in collecting that wise by the agencies and the plans.
And so, it's something as simple as
if we send them a spreadsheet out,
and they send up a completely different spreadsheet back.
That is a huge thing for time,
but also make it very difficult
to match up our patients with what's been done.
Other things are,
one utility, you handed us a list of current project
that was around 3 to 400,
another one that was 10,773, I think.
so, you know, working on getting that information.
So, it's in a usable format
and being careful we don't get what we asked for
and not what we need.
So, we worked on those things right now
and really just making sure that the information
is complete and accurate.
We're running into some issues where the facilities are
doing work is basically manifestation management
that they're calling,
reliability or they're linking it to
other types of work,
even when it has not been reported.
And so, we're...
We have to contact them and they're saying,
that they need to buy this, all of their projects,
that are going to be doing this work,
if the public may believe are
wildfire related to that, we will start right there.
In the sort of the last thing and the last word
was we need to focus as John was talking about.
He's really focused on outcomes and risk reduction
in a voice with a biopic focus on percentages complete
circuit miles of pardon.
Conductor or freeze reboots, because we have to question,
if you take out a 10,000 trees,
whether the right things or if you're classifying
all the streets is hazardous is we're seeing,
we're not seeing patterns as far as the eucalyptus
or other trees tend to be
either earned very well, very easily
for our very detectable failure during windstorm
or on leaning or next to a line.
Or if we say you need to do 10,000 trees
they will take down 10,000 trees
and beat that metric,
but not actually move the risk down
in, you know, the same fashion.
So, we're working on making sure that we're focused on that.
The same thing as you know,
is it right mitigation method for those working miles?
If a risk exists, you know, it did you,
you know, take up tree and as the board price out,
you can do enhance substation management,
get rid of all of the ladder fuel, get rid of the trees,
you know, in 25 with area,
but we have a lot of grass down there.
You can have the issue where it can burn hundreds of feet
across my grassland
and then set that ladder small trees
and impact people and houses.
So that's the...
That is, you know, pretty, pretty wild partying.
I bet I did answer that substation management
is something like we're seeing in some of the dump out
where they're not just replacing the poles and raising it,
but they're increasing the
phase round and face to face separation.
So, it's basically they can have a lot more wins because,
now the stores are much farther apart
sort of longer,
longer odds and also the higher up,
you have them for distance from the ground as well
to avoid other issues.
So, that's one of the things we have to realize
that half of work at
what is the best thing?
And to continue to really work with,
you know, other experts in the field on,
you know, is the work that's being done the best way
to do it.
So, any questions about that?
-: Leave any questions from the board
on any portion of...
Mader John, go ahead.
-: I just want to reiterate Christopher
that a lot of these issues that you've identified,
we've also identified.
So, we loved that cause you didn't have dialogue
about how to solution for resources.
-: Yeah, I just did 200 agreed with us,
it was just really smart (laughing).
-: There you go.
-: It's actually really good to see you guys
identifying a of the issues that we are concerned about.
So, you had some really good ideas on solutions for them,
so, that's appreciated.
So, the last couple things,
Oh, you have more questions?
-: No fine.
-: Okay.
The last few things Christopher
we're continuing to work on audit compliance plan
and GIS capabilities to basically,
link all of the WMP initiatives to actions
with the compliance plan.
And so, basically,
if they say they're gonna go to do an activity,
we have
develop our points to track that monitoring for
completeness and quality of the work that's being done
and really it needed to separate the
actual compliance information from
a lot of the information that's collected
for future analysis and trend identification.
A lot of that is very good for doing analysis,
doing the study, but it's not something I can action
easily or so.
We're looking at a lot of the information,
how much of it is informational and how much is actionable?
We're working on that right now.
And, I think I already spoke to the fact that we...
We finalized our
compliance contractor and they're doing...
They're helping us with the field inspection
in Southern part of the state right now.
And if they're focused more to risk assessment tasks
and those risk assessment tasks, they're gonna do,
are going to help us
better dispatch our inspectors going forward.
So, we can really focus on
risk areas that may not be exactly
where the utilities are working,
but where we think we need to get more on the ground
and actually see the whole condition and areas that
utilities may not have identified.
And, the very last thing I'll say is,
we are also...
We put together a complaint process to work
coordinating with other divisions within the CPUC
to make sure that if
customers are windy
issues with ball park patient plan activities
or there's identifying wildfire risk,
they put that into the planning process at the CPUC.
And my staff has eyes on those complaints
so, that we can follow up on them.
So, that's what I have for now.
-: One more question if you would permit.
Given your current resources,
if you were to only approach what you believe
at the higher priority inspection areas,
is that one year, two years, 20 year process,
what do you think?
-: That is a really good question,
fully staffed up,
I would have, you know, eight people go into the field,
of course, none of the time,
'cause there's a lot of other auditing work
that they have to do as well.
But if I could get them out in the field
and still see through other tasks,
the problem is...
Is almost like the Golden Gate Bridge.
By the time I get to the ends of those
high areas, which might take me 3 years of work,
the condition on that first area
may have changed significantly.
So, there were some aspect where once you take a look at it,
it's probably good for a while.
You know, age edition,
general stuff of some of the infrastructure,
the vegetation could change rapidly, but also you could have
another offense that somehow damages
or causes of risk to the call
that could happen a week after you look at it.
So, I would hate to say that after a certain amount of time,
we would have had expected everything and we're...
We can just sit back and say,
we have a completely safe system.
Ultimately the owners is on
utilities to do that continuous action and monitoring.
So,
I'm thinking that after we'd been out for a couple of years,
and utility is precise, working over their shoulder,
I'm hoping that we get to a point where
we're finding much fewer defects per month.
I would just make it up a number,
if I told you that I instilled in a month
I would check all the high area.
-: Alright, that's fair.
That's fair, I wanna make sure that any of the board members
who have follow up questions or commentary
have an opportunity.
-: Yes, Board Member Block.
-: Hi Christopher, thank you for your presentation.
And I'm excited to hear about your proactive,
thinking about all this,
and I hear ramping up your GIS disabilities.
Are you interested in what I have for collaboration,
could I help in some way?
-: Yeah,
we're working with,
you know, as receiving, you know, contractors with
just an oprah on fire, it's been wonderful as well,
you know,
in other brand we have a GIF specialist
who has been helping us build up our...
Our dashboard information.
But yes, there's an active team
this being run out of Alyssa's branch on the data
and out there supporting my team.
It will be great to have a chat on that.
-: Okay, great.
I'd love to be involved with support that data effort
with you and Melissa and Caroline.
Thank you.
-: Alright, excellent.
Any other inquiries comment by the board?
I'd like to thank Mr Meyer for a detailed presentation.
Very appreciated, it provides great...
Oh, I'm sorry, John, did you wanna say something?
We're done.
-: No, I was just signifying.
Thank you for enjoying me.
-: Excellent.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr Meyer we appreciate your participation.
Alright.
Let's see,
our closing thoughts.
I'm supposed to wait 30 seconds for another darn slide.
Well, I'll get him out of this slide, okay?
I was waiting 30 seconds per slide that said adjourn.
Thank you for this.
Alright, our summer and fall board meeting scheduled
be posted on the WCD website as soon as we finalize,
just so that people are aware
we're going to be having meetings
with a larger group of publicly owned utilities,
as well as community aggregators.
You know, they have,
you know, they have a boat in this race too,
and they wanna understand
what issues are being undertaken with respect
to minimize the impacts on their customer.
So, we're gonna be hit...
We're gonna be doing that.
Don't hesitate to reach out, our contact information
is on the website Safety Advisory Board.
I would like to do a special shout out to Robert Sanford
and Joe Haggis and our IT team of professionals,
for allowing it to conduct this meeting in a way,
that I thought was wonderful.
They did a fabulous job.
You're getting hand applause by the board, just so you know.
Alright, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Yeah, Diane says, "Absolutely, can I have a second?"
John Mader second.
All those in favor.
-: Aye. -: Good job.
-: Fabulous job, I'm so proud of them.
Alright, this meeting is adjourned.
Thank you very much.