(upbeat music)
Joseph: Welcome to the California Public Utilities
Commission on this day, Monday, March 1st, 2021.
Marybel: Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I'd like to thank my fellow Commissioners
for joining us today for this public meeting
with Southern California Edison to report on their plan
to improve their planning, execution, and communications
of their public safety power shutoff events
going into the 2021 fire season.
Before we begin, I would like to cover
some of the information
on the public participation in today's meeting.
Participants can hear the live event
and make comments at the end of the public meeting.
Dial into 800-857-1917
and enter pass code 8147204 pound.
Participants listening in by phone
will be placed on mute in a listen only mode
until the public comment portion of the meeting begins.
Once the public comment portion of the meeting begins,
participants may dial star-one when they wish to speak,
to be placed in a queue by the operator.
You will be called upon to speak when we get
to the public comment period in today's agenda.
If you encounter difficulty calling into
the public telephone line, please contact
CPUC's Public Advisor at public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
or call toll free 866-849-8390.
With that, turning to the subject of today's meeting.
When it comes to the decision
to shutoff power to customers,
utilities must execute PSPS events
in a manner that places the wellbeing
of the people and the communities they serve first.
Looking back at the 2020 wildfire season,
Edison initiated 16 power shutoffs between May and December.
The majority of the events were in November and December,
including two major holidays.
In January, I sent a letter to Edison,
expressing my deep concerns with Edison's PSPS execution,
and we held a public meeting to address the deficiencies.
Among the various problems we observed
with Edison's planning and execution
were issues with the level of transparency
around the PSPS decision-making process,
inadequate notification to impacted customers,
poor coordination and communication
with state and local governments,
shortcomings in identifying and notifying
Medical Baseline and Access and Functional Needs customers,
and inadequate PSPS post-event reporting to the Commission.
In addition, there were also serious concerns with the pace
at which Edison has been deploying backup power
to help vulnerable customers endure PSPS events.
In our January public meeting, we had significant discussion
with Edison leadership on their shortcomings,
and heard from numerous elected officials
and community members about the severe impacts
Edison's inadequate execution had been on them.
As part of the CPUC's ongoing actions
to ensure Edison reduces the frequency,
scope, and impact of PSPS on their customers,
we required Edison to submit a corrective action plan
to our staff and to begin meeting with them
on a bi-weekly basis to have real-time accountability
and feedback on their progress on their corrective action.
Today's public meeting is meant to further
inure accountability for Edison
to both the Commission and to its customers.
Edison must demonstrate today,
and throughout this Winter and Spring,
that it is taking seriously and taking appropriate action,
to ensure the mistakes of last Fall will not occur again
and to ensure Edison is prioritizing
the safety of their customers.
Edison submitted their PSPS corrective action plan
to the CPUC on February 12th,
and our safety leadership has begun
oversight meetings with them.
Today, we will hear from Edison
the specifics of their plan and how they intend
to course correct over the next few months.
In terms of the order of today's meeting,
we will first hear from Edison
on their corrective action plan
and then Commissioners on the dais
will have an opportunity to ask questions,
followed by public comments.
With that, I would like to turn to my fellow Commissioners
to see if they have any opening remarks
that they would like to make.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: No, thank you, President Batjer.
No opening remarks.
-: Okay, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you.
I very much appreciate your facilitating this discussion,
President Batjer, it's a very important one.
We've witnessed massive destruction
resulting from California wildfires.
We've enacted massive efforts
to prevent such further destruction,
but there is so much more work to be done.
I appreciated that during our January 26th meeting,
that Southern California Edison shared what they are doing,
their ability to sectionalize outages
towards reducing the number of customers affected.
That's useful, but there's much more to be done.
And especially the communication from customers.
It was very remarkable, as you outlined,
the sheer number of elected and customers
who called in to share their experience.
And it was very tough because
some of those public safety power shutoffs
occurred right during the holiday season.
I do want to thank the Wildfire Safety and Enforcement staff
and their representatives who are here today,
from Southern California Edison, and including Jessica Lim,
who serves on our Low Income Oversight Board.
Looking forward to this session.
Thank you, President Batjer.
Marybel: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma,
Commissioner Houck, would you like to make
some opening comments?
-: I also would like to thank you
for arranging for and facilitating the meeting today.
This is a very important issue.
And as a new Commissioner, I'm looking forward to hearing
from Souther California Edison and the staff,
and thank them for being available today
to present the issues, and look forward to hearing more.
Marybel: Okay, thank you.
I believe that Commissioner Guzman Aceves
is listening in today, so she is participating by phone.
-: Present Batjer, I am here.
I'm not sure why... <v Marybel>Oh good!
I'm sorry, I couldn't see you, good.
Commissioner Guzman Aceves. -: It's okay,
I don't have any opening remarks, thank you.
I'm interested in hearing from the company.
Marybel: Okay, thank you very much.
All right, with that, we will turn to SoCal Edison
to present on their corrective action plan.
Edison.
-: Good afternoon.
And thank you, President Batjer,
and Commissioners, for your time today,
as we review the elements of the plan
that we filed on February 12th.
I would welcome, feel free to post the slides at any time,
although they're not necessary for my opening remarks.
So, my name is Erik Takayesu.
And I am the current Vice President of PSPS Readiness
put in charge of our plan for 2021.
I've been with Edison for 30 years.
And I'm an Incident Commander for PSPS,
and I've been involved in some of our largest events.
Your opening remarks highlight the issues and concerns
that are front and center in our plan.
We look forward to continually engaging
members of your staff on a bi-weekly basis
to ensure we successfully complete
the elements we identified,
with the end result of reducing
the frequency and scope of PSPS,
improving the execution,
including our notifications and communications,
as well as our engagement
with our partners and our stakeholders.
And since the January 26th meeting,
Edison has assembled an organizational structure
that pulls together this plan,
leveraging subject matter experts from across Edison
that are now dedicated to this effort.
A number of them are here with me today,
so you can meet and directly engage with the leaders
who are working to significantly improve key functions
within our company involved with PSPS, given this is one
of the highest priorities for our company this year.
So, let me just start off with brief introductions
to the speakers we have on line today.
Terry Ohanian is our Director over our Southeast Division
for Distribution, Construction, Maintenance,
working to execute all of our grid hardening activities,
and accelerating work on our most impacted circuits.
Jessica Lim is our Principal Manager
over Customer Service Programs,
where we have consolidated all of the programs, services,
customer notifications, and communications for PSPS.
Tom Brady is our Principal Manager in Business Resiliency
over all of our external engagements in the area of PSPS,
with state and local emergency management,
ICS protocols and reporting.
And Ranbir Sekhon is our Director
of Business Transformation, integral to integrating
our IT systems and digital automation enhancements
across the entire program.
Each one is dedicated full time
for the completion of our action plan,
and all have been involved with PSPS,
either in events or ongoing improvements.
Now I'll spend the rest of our time covering the action plan
and I'll have a few opening remarks and comments
related to our 2020 fire season and response.
And then we'll have a few of our leads
review the plan in more detail.
So if you wouldn't mind going to the presentation
and specifically going to slide three, I'd appreciate it.
Thank you.
So, as our CEO, Kevin Payne, described
at the January 26th meeting, 2020 was a year
of unimaginable tragedy for many Californians.
In our high fire risk areas we experienced
record dry fuel levels throughout the year,
from heat spells and lack of precipitation,
and a series of more significant Santa Ana wind events
towards the end of the year
We saw 70% more red flag days in 2020 versus 2019.
And 2/3 of our activations occurred
from November through the end of the year,
noting the particular hardships
experienced by our customers over the holiday season.
I, and the members of our teams, have heard the concerns
and frustrations of our customers and communities
who have been affected by PSPS events.
And with the challenges with the COVID 19 pandemic,
that has affected all of us, the seriousness
of the situation couldn't be more significant.
And this underscores the importance
of having a more resilient grid
that will significantly reduce the risk of utility equipment
sparking catastrophic wildfires and the need for PSPS.
And while more circuits and customers were de-energized
as a result of those weather events,
we did see positive improvement.
Our main emphasis in 2020 was focused
on the distribution system, creating segmentation plans
for every one of our 1100 circuits
in our high fire risk areas.
Most notably, when we compare to distribution circuits
de-energized in 2019, we saw fewer of those same circuits
and customers de-energized in 2020,
and we removed around 25,000 customers in scope for PSPS.
But, while this yielded some benefit,
there is clearly more work to do.
Net overall, we saw more circuits and customers
coming in scope, with 230,000 customers impacted
when we count the number of repeated de-energizations.
We use PSPS as a last resort
to protect the lives and property of the people we serve
when weather and fire conditions demand it.
But we now need to further direct our efforts
to focus on the most frequently impacted circuits.
Now, based on our experience so far,
the path towards addressing these circuits
have become clearer, with our strategy addressing for 2021,
circuits that have experienced
four or more de-energizations since 2019.
And we believe the hardening of our grid
will not only mitigate the frequency of PSPS,
but will serve to improve the overall
reliability and resiliency going forward.
And while we continually work to reduce PSPS,
even beyond the circuits highlighted in our plans,
we also need to take a further leadership role
in helping our customers, communities, and partners
mitigate the impact of PSPS when it does occur,
providing clear and transparent information status
and further shaping our programs to assist
our most vulnerable customers,
as addressed in the five main categories
of actions in our plan, which are to reduce the use of PSPS,
execute our events effectively,
mitigate the impacts of PSPS,
keeping our partners and customers informed,
and enhancing and improving our post-event reporting.
We have quite a bit of information to cover today.
Unless there are any questions at this point,
I'll now hand over to Terry Ohanian to review in more detail
our plans to reduce the use of PSPS.
Terry: Thank you, Erik.
Sorry.
Begin?
Marybel: Go ahead, Terry, I'm sorry.
I was just thanking Erik.
So go ahead, please.
Sorry to interrupt.
Terry: No worries, all right, thanks.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm Terry Ohanian, and like Erik, I have served as an IC
on a significant number of the events
that just occurred in this past season.
So, today I'll be covering
our expedited grid hardening efforts.
And as Erik mentioned, we use PSPS as a last resort.
And to that end, we have developed
a concentrated effort to reduce the use of PSPS.
Our customers have high expectations for us,
two of which are, to keep them safe,
and deliver reliable electricity.
So we will focus particular attention
on frequently impacted circuits that experience
four or more PSPS de-energizations since 2019.
And the goal is to reduce the scope
and or the customers impacted, the frequency,
and also the duration of these events.
We do understand 2020 was a particularly challenging year.
And we must learn from these past events
to improve the customer experience.
So, our work scope for expedited grid hardening
includes 72 circuits.
And we identified these circuits on February 19th
as part of the action plan.
And we intend to accomplish this expedited effort
through four primary methods.
And although there are other options for grid hardening,
our intent here with this effort is
to ensure that we can deliver benefits
before the peak 2021 fire season.
So ultimately, this is a multi-year effort
to more extensively harden these and other circuits as well.
But this effort is focused on delivering
certain achievable mitigations by October 1.
The first one we list here is,
the first grid hardening method we list here,
is covering our bare wire.
I think you've all heard this before,
covered conductor helps prevent unintentional contact
from becoming an ignition, by allowing things
like tree branches, palm fronds, other debris,
to float in and out of our lines
without igniting or interrupting the circuit.
The wind-driven debris can ignite,
cause our wire to come down,
and create the potential for an ignition.
And by covering the wire,
the potential for this occurring is greatly diminished.
The benefit to our customers is that
covering an entire circuit or a circuit segment
enables Edison to raise wind speed thresholds,
thereby eliminating some de-energization events entirely,
because the winds may never reach the higher thresholds,
or if it does occur, the wind speeds
will likely occur later in the event.
So, if you can imagine, when the winds are elevating,
it will occur later in the event.
And then they'll also go below the threshold sooner,
and therefore shortening the events that actually do occur.
So this will have, and Erik mentioned this earlier,
reliability benefits beyond only reducing PSPS,
as wind events can occur throughout the year,
not just during PSPS events.
The second method we mention here is
installing automated switching devices,
or automating existing devices,
so that we can more narrowly isolate the areas
that are experiencing the elevated wind speeds.
So this was a focus area for us in 2020.
And now expanding on this effort, we continue
to look at circuit segments rather than entire circuits.
And the benefit of sectionalizing devices
is to reduce the scope of an event.
And also, these devices have the ability
to reduce the duration for some customers as well.
The third method, expedited grid hardening method,
that we mention here is to review
whether certain circuits or circuit segments,
based on local or recent changes in environmental conditions
can be removed from PSPS' scope entirely.
The example we list here is a recent burn scar.
It may not have been previously factored into our modeling.
And so we want to make sure that we incorporate that.
And if the fuel conditions are not conducive
for an ignition to occur or for a fire to spread,
then we may be able to exempt
that portion of the circuit from PSPS.
So with greater segmentation through continued installation
of these automated switching devices,
this becomes a greater possibility, as we can isolate
particular areas that may not be a concern.
The benefits to customers could be a reduction in scope
or a reduction in the frequency of PSPS events.
The fourth method is adding new weather stations,
thereby improving our situational awareness
of actual field conditions.
By adding more weather stations,
particularly in areas with increased segmentation,
we can attribute weather conditions more specifically
to certain segments of a circuit.
And we're also looking to deploy mobile weather stations.
We obviously can't install weather stations
in very large numbers throughout
all the different areas of a circuit,
but mobile weather stations give us the ability
to respond quickly to changing conditions.
So, this will not only add to the weather reading capacity
that we have, but also provide the ability
to get more accurate live field conditions
at a particular location that we're worried about.
The benefit here to customers is
the potential reduction in scope,
frequency, and duration of certain PSPS events.
So I want to add, also, that although we have
a concentrated effort to develop
mitigation strategies for the 72 circuits,
this doesn't mean other circuits are left behind.
This expedited effort represents probably about half
of all the grid hardening work we're doing in 2020.
So I don't want to imply that we are
ignoring other customers, but I believe it's appropriate
to focus these efforts on those
that are experiencing the most PSPS events,
particularly over the last couple of years.
I'll close by just a quick update
on our high level milestones,
as we committed to in our action plan on February 19th.
We did identify a list of 72 circuits
we are targeting for expedited improvements.
And from a geographical standpoint,
these will be mostly in communities that experience
the strongest winds, because that's where
most PSPS de-energizations have been occurring.
And by June 1, we intend to implement
our risk informed circuit exceptions.
I'll note here, that although this represents our effort
to review presently identified exception conditions,
it's possible some of the review work we're doing
in our grid hardening, it may also provide for exceptions.
So the work here likely will continue beyond June 1.
And lastly, as I mentioned earlier,
we're targeting to complete this work
in time for peak 2021 wildfire season.
So by October 1, we intend to complete
the key expedited hardening work
that we are targeting as part of this effort.
And I should note, there are considerable obstacles.
There's a lot of work to do in a short amount of time.
So quite a bit to overcome.
But we have a team focused on this
to ensure that we have appropriate resources
to help us complete the work.
So with that, unless there are questions,
I'll hand it over to Tom Brady
who will review in more detail
our plan to execute PSPS more effectively.
-: Okay, thank you, Terry. -: President Batjer?
Marybel: Yes?
Martha: Can I ask a couple follow-ups on that?
Marybel: Commissioner Guzman Aceves, please.
-: And maybe we can go back one slide?
You mentioned that you've identified 72 circuits.
Terry: Correct.
Martha: Has that been increased
from an effort that you've done over the Winter,
or is that what you had?
Can you explain, is this something that you've augmented
given what happened last Fall Winter?
Or is this what you were planning?
Terry: Yeah, I would say both.
It's a focused effort on those that have been most impacted.
There was already, in scope, mitigations that were planned.
But some of these are gonna need to be accelerated.
Some of them will need to be augmented.
Because as we reviewed the circuits,
we were really looking for opportunities where we could
really make a difference in this short amount of time.
So, it's really a little bit of both.
There was already covered conductor scope in-flight,
but I'll use it as an example.
We may have had a completion date of October.
And for us, that was too late.
So, we were looking to advance some of the completion dates
for the scope that may have already been in-flight.
But in re-reviewing these circuits, with really a focus on
how do we improve the PSPS experience,
we were able to identify, in some cases,
new covered conductor scope
or new isolating devices that we can install.
-: Okay I'm not sure I quite understand.
So prior to February,
well, even prior to this, let's say last six months,
that you have previously had identified?
So it sounds like you had these same 72 circuits identified
and you're just enhancing your review of them?
Or are you actually enhancing
the amount of circuits that you're reviewing?
-: Many of the 72 had work in-flight
that work was planned for 2021.
But in some cases we identified new scope that we could add
to what we were doing that would improve, reduce the scope,
the frequency and the duration of PSPS events.
So we augmented it with new scope.
But we also, because some of it we felt
was gonna complete too late in the year
to really provide as much benefit,
we accelerated the completion date for some of that work.
-: And what is an example of segments that goes beyond,
beyond doing the, covering the conductor?
-: So it would include some of the things
that I mentioned earlier, like a new switch,
an automated switch, at a location that we thought
could isolate customers that we believed
may not be as impacted by the winds.
So, if there's a particular segment that,
where we have a weather station,
that we're really concerned about,
but there may be another portion of that circuit
that we don't believe is experiencing
the same level of wind speeds,
we could add a new automated sectionalizing device,
automated switch, to give us the ability
to only de-energize the portion that we're worried about.
-: Okay, but, in the way you described it is
you're currently assessing the feasibility.
So you don't have like a master description
of all the investments that are
gonna take place on these 72 circuits yet?
-: Yes, I'm sorry.
Yeah, it's really circuit by circuit.
So we've gone through a series of what we call deep dives,
going through each circuit, understanding the scope
that's already in place, and what more we could do
to further improve the PSPS experience
for the 2021 wildfire season.
So, it really was starting with
what we already have in place, and then getting a team
of people together, engineers and various other folks,
and looking at what we could do.
Could we cover an entire segment?
How much is remaining there?
Could we add a new weather station over here,
where we think the wind speeds aren't as--
-: Okay, yeah.
So when are you gonna be done with that?
-: So, identification of the 72 circuits is complete.
We're currently going through a benefits assessment.
So, we want to make sure the mitigations
that we've identified will yield
the type of benefits that we're hoping for.
And if not, we plan to iterate and go back.
But, so, at this point we're going through that process.
And the goal is to finish all this work by October 1.
-: Okay. And then help me understand this June threshold.
So June is when you decide that some
of these distinct investments
or particular circuits don't need to be included?
-: Yeah.
So, the June is the exception process.
So we have another team looking through the circuits
and identifying areas of a circuit
that may not be a concern.
The obvious one is a recent burn scar.
So the fuels just aren't there.
And if we're able to isolate that segment,
we may be able to avoid putting that segment
under PSPS for this upcoming fire season.
Other areas we look at might be
if we can install a switch at a particular location,
maybe there is a portion of it that runs through
a developed area, like a parking lot,
or just an area that doesn't appear to have fuels
that would be conducive to a fire.
So, they're identifying those.
And what we'll do is submit them for exception.
We'll just confirm, we'll send somebody out in the field
and confirm what we're seeing on the maps,
that in fact it is not an area
that we should be overly concerned about.
And in some of these cases, we'll have to install
some additional sectionalizing devices
to be able to isolate it, because the segment
that we currently have might extend
from this non-concerning area up into,
let's just say a wildfire area.
So we may have to do some additional work there,
but the intent is to exclude it from PSPS considerations.
And that'll be completed June 1, with our initial effort.
I don't want to imply that our work is ever done.
If new opportunities are identified post-June 1,
our intent is to continue on with that work.
-: Okay, thank you for clarifying that.
-: You're welcome.
Marybel: Terry, before we go to Tom, I have a question.
This may be premature in your presentation.
So, if it is, you can wait and address it later.
But, in real-time, when you get
right down to calling a PSPS,
can someone during the course of the presentation
please walk me through the steps
that are considered before you actually execute?
What are those decision points that, you as a team,
you and the executive team,
what is it that you absolutely consider?
And what we're talking about here is,
I understand shortening the duration,
trying to harden the system
so fewer PSPS has have to be called.
But I really want to get a good, solid picture of,
to sort of define, when we all say
a PSPS is at the last resort.
So I want to know what are those three
or four or five decision points
that will determine that, okay, we gotta do it.
So again, it may be premature in your presentation.
But I want us to get to that.
-: I have a suggestion.
Maybe we can try to address your question now.
But I think there'll probably be other pieces of information
that might also help inform as we go through
our engagement with external parties
and some of the other considerations.
So, why don't we go ahead and start.
And I'll start it off, and I'll look to the team here,
to supplement the discussion.
So, like all other PSPS events, it begins with a forecast.
And we have a circuit by circuit forecast
for every one of our distribution circuits,
as well as our sub transmission and our transmission lines.
And as part of that, we look out three to five days.
But we do look at this line by line,
as far as what we, first of all,
is this a credible event that's coming in, and if so,
we start to look at anywhere from our transmission
and everything that's downstream of that,
as well as all of our distribution lines.
If we think there's a transmission
or a sub transmission event, that's potentially in scope,
one of the other things that we do is we perform
what's called a reliability study.
And so there's a distinctive difference here between
power systems that are on the distribution systems
that are radial that directly feed our customers
versus a network system that we have
on the sub transmission and the transmission lines.
And generally the wind speed thresholds
for those are higher.
So, there's a lot fewer lines that we have in scope.
But, what we try to identify is whether or not,
the lines in scope, are there other alternatives
that we could use instead if we got into an issue
whereby we could continue to maintain service
to our customers, and if needed, de-energize portions
of our sub trans or transmission lines.
So we, I guess the best case scenario here is,
if we do have to de-energize,
that we're able to de-energize sections
of our sub trans and transmission system
without interrupting service to our customers.
On the distribution side,
we have grown and adapted and evolved
towards a segment by segment, real-time decision,
as opposed to circuit by circuit.
So, this raises some complexities
that I do want to talk about.
So, when we think about a larger scale event,
and I'm just gonna say, typically we'll see
somewhere northward of 150 to 200 circuits on a large event.
What that means real-time is that we are
monitoring 700 plus segments,
because of the way we sectionalize the system.
But, in anticipation of the event,
we do what's called pre-patrols of our system.
And what a pre-patrol is,
is armed with information that we know about
in terms of prior maintenance items or other areas
of concern that our field resources are aware of,
they perform a cursory review before
the weather event begins to identify
if there's any issues on our system
that needs to be remediated quickly.
So, we call those pre-patrols, and they are designed
to be both conducted on the distribution
as well as our sub trans and our transmission system.
So that's information that is also taken into account.
When we get into the weather event itself,
we look at what the size of the event is going to be.
If this is gonna be a small event,
where we have a handful of circuits,
a medium or a large size event,
'cause that determines the resources we need,
the coverage we need in our incident management team.
It determines how much in advance we need
to stand up and get ready for an event.
So, in small events, we want our field resources
and our teams to be stood up two hours
before the period of concern when the.
What we've seen in 2020 is weather can come up very quickly,
particularly in those larger events.
So when we get into the actual event
and the period of concern, everybody's monitoring,
we have live observers in the field.
That's when we look at, well,
and I'll take us a step back,
prior to that beginning, we establish,
if it is a larger event, how might we prioritize
de-energization segment by segment?
'Cause one of the things that we have to be able to do
is not only exercise and understand our thresholds,
we have to manage the event responsibly.
So, if we think that we're gonna face
a large number of de-energizations
subsequently happening one after the other,
because we were looking at everything segment by segment,
we look at how might we prioritize that based on risk.
So we establish some alert levels for our threshold,
that if we really started to see events escalate,
that we would take more decisive actions sooner
when we forecast our threshold to be breached,
but in larger numbers.
So, when we get into the actual event,
we look to our Business Resiliency Department
to see if there's any issues that have come up.
In our Public Safety Department, we do the notifications.
We identify if there's anything that
we need to respond to before the wind event begins.
And what we've done most recently is,
in the larger event in January,
we reached out to all of the hospitals and COVID centers
that we knew were gonna be potentially a significant issue.
So, we wanted to understand if they had
resiliency plans in place, if there were things
that we needed to do differently in our system,
in terms of de-energizations, and do we need a stand-by
to provide generation if we have to.
So then when you get into the event we look at
both our FPI, as well as our wind speeds,
and input from our life observers.
One of the things we noted in December,
which is a bit challenging,
is sometimes it's followed by a precipitation event,
or there's been some moisture
coming in earlier expected to dry out.
So we also track what's called a weather rating
on all of our circuits to understand whether or not
the FPI information we have,
if there's any questions around it.
So there have been times when moisture
has settled in and we've backed off.
But there's been other times when the wind speeds
have increased faster than expected
and we have to take action sooner.
So, we then, our dashboards are looking at
all of our weather stations and all of our segments.
And we're tracking each one and sort it
by worst case situation,
down to the ones we don't have to worry about.
Operations teams are in constant communication
with our partners, with our business resiliency folks,
and with the incident commander,
so when a decision has to be made,
we authorize imminent notifications to be issued.
And then, if all the conditions then meet,
that's when we take action to de-energize.
Now I was a little bit long winded,
but I'm hoping to at least hit most of the high points.
And there's a lot of nuances in and throughout the process.
Marybel: One quick followup,
and then we will turn to Tom.
The wind speed, speeds, that you are gauge,
that help in your decision-making,
is that 35 miles an hour, sustained?
-: So we use three different levels for threshold.
Most of them are based either on
the 99th percentile of historical wind speeds.
And sometimes they're using
the National Weather Service Wind Advisory level
of 31 miles an hour sustained with 46 mile an hour gusts.
They're also gonna be ones that
historically are slightly above that,
but we'll use the National Weather Service
where we have designated the highest risk,
either by tier or by consequence modeling.
And then the third set that I referenced
was ones that we have identified
have particular outage increases
or rates of outages for particular wind speeds.
But for the most part, they're either
based on the 99th percentile
or the National Weather Service Wind Advisory.
Marybel: Okay, thank you.
We can move on now, I think.
Tom: All right, sound check.
This is Tom, can you hear me okay?
Marybel: Yes, we can.
Tom: Thank you for that.
So, good afternoon, President Batjer and Commissioners.
I'm going to open on this slide
by describing our ongoing efforts
to work towards addressing the variance
between notification and de-energizations
through improving the precision
and the granularity of our forecasting capabilities.
I will also provide an update on our continued efforts
to improve the transparency and the effectiveness
of our communication and engagement
with our emergency management partners
prior to, during, and after events.
SCE de-energizes circuits based on
actual observed conditions in the field
and not on forecasts.
To help reduce the variance between
notification and de-energizations,
it is critical for our forecasts to align
as closely as possible with actual conditions in the field
during the period of concern
SCE currently has two supercomputers
that run a twice daily, high resolution weather forecast
for each of our PSPS circuits.
These forecasts are further refined in events
by our expert fire scientists
and teams of experienced meteorologists
to identify the circuits that are forecast
to reach levels that create an imminent fire hazard risk.
We have initiated the procurement process
to bring on board two additional supercomputers
which will allow us to double the resolution
of our weather model by going from
two kilometers to one kilometer.
This will allow our meteorologists and fire science team
to predict weather conditions more accurately
throughout the complex and dynamic topographies
and microclimates where our circuits exist.
Additional supercomputing resources
will also allow us to provide our meteorologists
with access to more forecast output,
or a broader range of possible outcomes
to base their predictions off,
also known as ensemble forecasting.
We are developing machine learning models
for 50 weather station locations,
starting with highly impacted circuits
and where forecasts have been the least accurate.
Beginning later in the Summer and into next year
we will begin developing models
for all of our weather stations,
representing some of our longer term efforts
to train and to retrain our models over time
as each station accumulates more data
to produce a more accurate result.
Switching gears and moving down to the middle of the slide,
let me start by reiterating,
that nothing is more important to us at SCE
than the safety and the wellbeing of our customers
during de-energization events.
We are continuing to build on the longstanding relationships
we have established with our county
and state emergency management partners
to mutually plan for and help mitigate against
public safety risks during PSPS events.
We have scheduled meetings with all of the county
emergency management officials in high fire risk areas,
and those meetings will occur prior to March 31st.
We will use the discussions to solicit feedback,
listen to understand,
and identify ways that we can communicate more effectively
prior to, during, and after events.
We will use these learnings to update our procedures
for more effectively communicating
with our emergency management agency partners
during these events.
We are also meeting monthly with our partners
at the California State Warning Center at Cal OES
to align our in-event communication
and information sharing protocols.
We are committed to providing our partners
with the right information,
at the right time, and in the right way.
Now I'm gonna pause for questions
before turning it over to Jessica
to discuss some of our other updates
in the area of effective PSPS execution.
Marybel: Tom, did you say you all
are meeting with OES once a month?
Tom: So we've scheduled meetings
with all of the county emergency management officials
to occur prior to March 31st.
So sort of a pre-wildfire season opportunity
to connect and think and listen
and make improvements to our protocols.
And then we are meeting with Cal OES,
the Warning Center folks monthly,
from now and through the start of fire season.
Marybel: I don't see any other questions.
So, I guess you can go ahead.
Tom: All right, over to Jessica.
-: All right thank you, Tom.
Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to share
how we are prioritizing our customers' experience
during PSPS events, which also includes
informing our customers at every critical step.
When PSPS events occur in the same timeframe
as other outages, such as a storm or a rotating outage,
this can be confusing to our customers to have to decipher
between these outages for status updates.
So, I wanted to share that by June of this year
on sce.com, customers, those that are our account holders
and those that are not account holders,
they're gonna find it easier to navigate
from our homepage to look up the status of their PSPS event.
And they're not going to have to determine up front
which type of outage they are looking up.
So customers can also continue to go directly
to sce.com/psps to get their PSPS specific updates.
We also understand that we can improve on notifications.
We heard a lot about this
from our customers as a pain point,
and we need to minimize the variance
between notifications and de-energizations,
misnotifications and the sources of confusion
and redundant messages that lead to notification fatigue.
So, to improve the notifications experience,
we have initiated an end to end analysis,
which will be informed
by our customers and our stakeholders.
We are looking at improvements
to our internal processes and tools,
especially during the day of an event
when we may have several circuits
hits threshold simultaneously in large-scale events.
We're committed to improve the precision of timeliness
and the content of our notifications.
A few of our near-term deliverables include
completing an examination of the causes
of any 2020 notification issued by the end of March,
which will inform the design
of our future internal practices and digital tools by May.
We will also complete a review
of the entire notification experience
from the customer's point of view.
And identify future state improvements by May,
such as messaging and the reduction of notifications fatigue
by reviewing the frequency of notifications sent out.
Lastly, we will focus on migrating customers
to premise level alerts to improve notification
and information clarity by June.
So, unless there are any questions,
I can move on to the next slide.
Marybel: As a follow-up,
oh, and then I'll turn to Commissioner Shiroma.
Would you just repeat what you said
in terms of premise discussion?
I mean premise decision? -: Sure, yeah.
Marybel: As to where the customers are?
Could you elaborate on that a bit?
-: Yeah, I can elaborate on that.
Basically right now, customers that are not account holders
or even if they are account holders,
we give them the choice that they can signup
for what we call zip code alerts.
And zip code alerts are easy to sign up for,
and customers can get an alert via the phone text or email.
But what creates confusion is that
a customer may get a zip code alert,
which is based on all circuits versus a premise level alert,
which is based on just your address.
And so premise level alerts are more specific.
So we believe that zip code alerts, while convenient,
are creating some confusion for our customers.
So we'd like to migrate those
who are enrolled in zip code alerts to premise level alerts.
Marybel: We had many comments in our January meeting,
if you listened in, about how confusing it was
to have zip code alerts, so I hope this is a,
definitely an improvement for your customers.
Again, this question may be a little premature,
but you've talked about who you're meeting with,
and the different things that you're doing
to make improvements by the end of March,
and then by the end of May.
Are you planning any customer town hall type style meetings
or customer touches so that you are hearing directly
from your customers, not just from emergency managers
managers and county folks and the state,
all of which are very important,
but I'm concerned about how much
you are actually getting input
from those that have been most impacted by the PSPS?
-: Yeah, thank you. And great question.
So, as I mentioned, we are informing our recommendations
with actual customer feedback.
At the end of November, we initiated
a new PSPS survey, and that survey is called
"Our Voice of the Customer Program",
where customers have been impacted by PSPS events,
they are invited to take a survey
and we can get their immediate feedback.
We're also gonna plan to do research on whatever messages
we come up with to improve the notification experience
and have our customers directly inform
the recommendations that we're making.
So we have several different touch points
and opportunities for customers to inform our plans.
-: Yeah, Jessica, one thing I'd add is that,
I think on slide nine, we do have a listing
of town hall style meetings
with our most impacted communities.
We're gonna host three virtual community meetings
far some of our most impacted communities this month.
And then the following of those will be done
by the end of the second quarter.
Marybel: Okay, that'll be very important.
Last thing, and then I'll turn to Commissioner Shiroma.
Just as FYI, we had over an hour, maybe it was two hours,
of comments in the January meeting from your customers.
And I'm just gonna say,
not one mentioned this customer survey,
that they had filled it out or had been notified of it
or were aware of it, just FYI.
Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
Yeah, at that January 26th public session,
we heard from a lot of people.
And we heard from electeds, from, I think,
just about every single city council member
of Acton Town spoke.
We also heard from electeds from Simi Valley, Ojai,
Stanton, Orange County, Malibu, and so forth.
From Senator Hueso and Senator Stern,
various assembly members, and so forth.
So, my question is,
you're describing a pretty massive effort,
but in that effort, and your 72 circuits
that you've made as a higher priority,
are you going back and communicating
with these electeds who are representing their communities,
juxtaposed against what your priorities are
with these circuits, and what does it mean for them.
In other words, are you getting granular on this
in going back to the people who bothered to phone in
and talk to us on the 26th?
And not only these jurisdictions,
but really all over as far as
what's you're prioritizing for this work
and what does it mean, actually, for them?
Whoever wants to answer,
whether it's Jessica or somebody else.
-: Yeah, I'll chime in here.
So we are meeting with a number of elected officials,
and notifications is one of the things that we cover.
One of the things that we've heard
and some of the input is around confusion,
because potentially at the end of the year
we have so many back-to-back events
that I think in one case, one of the county supervisors
sort of reported that there was sort of like
36 notifications that they had received for a single event.
So that kind of speaks to, one, we are getting feedback,
but the second thing is there may be a way
that we have to communicate with our local government
and our public safety partners in a way that also simplifies
what is happening during the event.
And then our customers also have to have
a level of simplification and lack of redundancy
and clarity in the messaging to them as well.
So, I think feedback we'll take
and we'll continue to ask more and more information
about what we could do to improve our response.
But the short answer to your question is, yes,
that is one of the pieces,
in addition to the grid hardening work
that's going on in each of the areas.
-: Yeah, I think it's important.
Somebody on your team needs to go back
and listen to the public comments
and overlay that with the engineering priorities
and software priorities that you set out
towards making sure that you've got,
you've linked up the human condition with the technical.
Thank you, President Batjer.
Thank you, Erik.
Marybel: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Okay, seeing no other questions,
back to you, I think, Jessica.
-: Okay, thank you.
So, I'm gonna go ahead and move on to this slide here.
As Erik shared in his opening remarks,
SCE will help our customers' communities
and partners mitigate the impact of PSPS,
providing programs and services,
especially for our most vulnerable customers.
So we have expanded our Critical Care Backup Battery program
to all eligible Medical Baseline customers
that reside in a high fire risk area
and are enrolled in CARE or FERA.
So, this year we are not facing the same contributors
to a delayed start as we did last year to this program.
So, I just want to briefly mention that in 2020,
with impacts from COVID-19, we experienced
some inventory challenges and we took a more conservative
marketing approach to reduce in-person contact.
And this year, we have inventory.
We are supported by a more robust marketing program
to match our expanded population.
We've already initiated marketing for this program,
with a combination of direct mail,
email, and outbound phone calls.
So each eligible customer will now receive
multiple contact attempts, and we'll also send
second and third follow-up letters
to followup those phone call attempts.
And then we're also going to be partnering
with local and tribal government
and community based organizations
to reach and enroll as many customers as we can.
So for example, we have been finalizing messaging
that will go into a March newsletter that will be sent
to all of our 1,600 network CBO agencies just as a start.
And we're going to be routinely tracking our progress
and taking proactive mitigation measures
to support customer participation.
And we'll also measure customer satisfaction
with our programs on a monthly basis.
So this month, we're also promoting
all of our other backup battery solutions, such as
our online marketplace portable batteries for our customers,
and generators for those that rely on electricity
to pump water in their home or businesses.
And with the approval
of our Self-Generation Incentive program,
marketing education, and outreach advice letter,
we're launching marketing efforts in April
to promote the Equity Resiliency Incentive
for residential and non-residential customers,
which also supports our vulnerable customers.
And then lastly, for community resiliency,
we're working with groups-- -: Jessica?
Jessica: Yes?
-: Jessica, this is a Cliff Rechtschaffen.
Can I ask you some follow-up questions,
if I may-- -: Absolutely.
-: On the backup program.
At the hearing in January,
you said that you have provided batteries
for 830 critical care customers.
And your goal was to reach 3,000 to 4,000
in high fire start areas.
So where are you, I assume that's not a different goal
than what you just articulated.
So you said you've expanded from 2,500 to 12,000 customers.
I'm not sure, I guess we should just level set.
What is your goal, what does it mean
that you've expanded the program?
You extended eligibility, but do you still have
a goal to reach 3,000 to 4,000 customers directly?
And are you any farther along
than providing batteries for 830 customers at this point?
-: Yeah, so you're correct that we are expanding
the eligibility from about 2,500 critical care customers
to about 12,000 Medical Baseline customers.
So our goal is to be able to promote
so that all eligible customers are aware of this program
with multiple contact attempts by Edison.
And we are forecasting that we may get around
3,000 to 4,000 batteries this year,
based on what we have experienced
and our conversations with the other IOUs.
But again, I just want to end with,
our goal is really not to have a certain number in mind,
but it's to reach all of our eligible customers
for this program, because we know how critical it is.
And we are really working with
community-based organizations and promoting these programs
with our local and tribal governments
and our upcoming meetings as well.
Oh, and I'm sorry, I forgot to answer your other question.
We are about over 1,000 batteries enrolled,
and we are now ramping up the marketing
for the eligible base.
And so the, about, over 1,000 so far,
it's really just with the critical care customers,
because we just started on the eligible population.
-: If I'm understanding you correctly,
you're expanding eligibility.
You want to offer it to 12,000.
You believe it's realistic that you'll,
3,000 to 4,000 customers will take advantage of the program?
-: That's right.
-: Okay. Let me ask you a little bit more.
By the way, are these ratepayer funded programs
or shareholder funded programs?
-: They are ratepayer funded programs.
-: And let me ask you what do you offer the customers
if it's a SCE specific program?
We're familiar with the SGIP Equity Resilience program,
since that's subject to Commission directive, of course.
And the goal there is for Medical Baseline customers
and customers in disadvantaged communities
to get a rebate that's essentially equivalent
to the cost of a backup battery
so that it's fully subsidized.
Is that the case for the backup equipment,
the batteries that you offer
to your critical care customers?
-: Yes, that's correct.
-: Fully subsidized product?
-: Fully subsidized, free battery,
with a three-year warranty,
as well as a 200 watt solar panel.
-: Okay. Thank you.
-: Mm hm.
Marybel: The corrective action plan, Jessica,
says that you will be doing the mailing and emailing
about the battery backup programs,
but battery vendors will be doing the actual calling.
So you all won't be contacting the customers,
it'll be a third party or a vendor?
Is that gonna be terribly confusing to your customers?
-: Not necessarily.
We do mention in our letter to our customers
that a qualified contractor will be calling the customer.
We also provide the number for the customer
to call the contractor themselves.
We have four contractors that are our ESA contractors,
Energy Savings Assistance program.
So they're very familiar
with vulnerable customer populations.
One of our contractors is also
a community-based organization as well.
-: Jessica, I just want to confirm
what you told me just a moment before,
because I haven't, it says that on your marketplace,
there's the list of available batteries
varies in cost from $600 to $1,400,
but both have a $500 rebate
depending on the customer status.
But, you're telling me that they're,
in fact you're providing the full cost
of the battery to the customers.
-: Right.
Commissioner, we have various different battery programs.
So the ones you're referring to on our marketplace,
those are for a rebate.
They're not for the fully subsidized.
The batteries available for our Critical Care Backup program
is fully subsidized, and the cost for those batteries
range from $2,000.00 to $5,000.00.
-: And then one final question,
I heard you say, unlike in the Fall, there was not a problem
with backup inventory in terms of actually getting
the batteries delivered to California.
Jessica: That's for the Critical Care
Battery Backup program.
With the manufacturer that we have partnered with,
they now have a Utah facility that will help
facilitate distribution and inventory.
The issues that we had were more towards
the beginning to the middle of last year.
-: Thank you.
Marybel: Okay, Jessica, I think you can go ahead.
-: Okay.
I just want to end on one last point on this slide,
which is that for community resiliency,
we're working with community leaders
in certain remote areas to enable backup power
as part of our Resiliency Zones pilot.
So four sites are currently under construction
and we are working with local and tribal governments
to identify additional sites.
And we will identify certain
remote community resource centers
to enable onsite backup power so that they can continue
to provide service to the community
if that CRC site is impacted by a PSPS event.
And so today we're working with three CRCs
and enabling backup power.
And we're identifying additional sites by June.
Som are there any last questions
before we go onto the next slide?
-: I have a question. Thanks.
So, in your corrective action plan, you outline
that you have 56 community resource centers under contract
and nine of the CCVs, the mobile vans.
So how are the other community resource centers,
other than the ones you just outlined,
that are gonna have on-site backup power?
How are the other centers powered, or are they outside?
Or you said they're outside of the PSPS zone?
-: Yes, good question.
So, we are utilizing the thought
of enabling backup power for those sites
that are in certain remote areas thinking that
they might be more prone towards our PSPS events,
versus some of our other sites are more adjacent
to PSPS events and they're sited in such a way
that we can utilize them during PSPS.
-: Thank you.
-: Sure.
Okay, we can go on to this slide here.
So, I want to just talk about
that SCE understands our partners and customers
need to be informed about PSPS.
And so our marketing campaign this year
focuses on educating customers and the public on PSPS,
including the conditions that trigger a PSPS,
how to prepare, and how to access information about events,
including signing up for notifications,
and all the available programs,
rebates, and services that we offer.
So, I wanted to mention that by April,
we will have new ads to refresh our marketing
to improve customer awareness of our available programs,
and to provide clear and concise language on mitigation,
preparedness, and community investments.
And our new ads will be informed
by customer message testing.
And then for our most vulnerable customers,
SCE will be expanding the verification
of notifications deliveries
during PSPS events to Medical Baseline
and self-certified vulnerable customers by July.
And we'll expand marketing to promote
the Medical Baseline program starting this month.
To better identify the needs of AFN customers,
we are partnering with members of the AFN Statewide Council.
And next month, SCE will initiate
the development of a research study.
And by July, we will have a web page that will enable
customers to self-certify as vulnerable online,
update contact information, and receive
helpful information on programs and services.
And keeping our customers informed about PSPS
is a partnership with public safety partners,
stakeholders, local and tribal governments.
And by June, SCE will launch
a public safety partner portal to improve coordination
in the planning and in-event response.
Similar to PG&E's portal, SCE will provide
user login access to information, and for planning purposes,
the portal will provide circuit maps,
a summary of potentially impacted customers,
PSPS policies, procedures, and sample notifications.
And for event information, SCE will provide
event specific information and maps,
PSPS outage and restoration areas,
a list of affected customers, and situation reports.
And then lastly, SCE engages
with local and tribal governments
and public safety partners throughout the year
to share information and to receive ongoing feedback
on improvement and collaboration opportunities.
So we are having one of our quarterly meetings
with our PSPS working groups this week
and the Advisory Board next week.
And we'll be specifically seeking additional feedback
on the action plan that we just filed with the Commission.
And on our next steps slide, Erik will provide
more information on other upcoming meetings.
So, that's all I had, unless there are any other questions,
I was gonna turn it over back to Tom Brady.
Marybel: I have a quick question on your followup
on your public safety partner portal,
and you just referenced PG&E.
One of the issues, very much improved by the way,
that they had a portal between 2019 and 2020.
But one of the concerns that folks had, that I'm recalling,
was that the information on the portal
needed to be kept up-to-date, timely,
and as useful as possible.
And that was a bit of a struggle, I think.
And the other thing we all need to keep in mind,
is oftentimes, in the areas where you have a PS,
you have people who, because of the lack of electricity,
they have no access to their computers,
they have no access to telephones.
So it's a real safety issue, of course, and communication.
And we have to keep that in mind.
And I'm hoping that you're communicating
very closely, along the way, as you're doing
all of these different preparations for 2021 fire season,
with the telecommunications companies
that are in your service territory.
Jessica: Yes, thank you.
We do meet on a monthly basis
with our critical infrastructure customers.
And we are planning to meet, actually,
with our telecom partners by the end of this month.
Martha: President Batjer, can I ask a follow up to that?
Marybel: Of course, please.
-: Yeah, and I think we've heard
different things in the past.
In some cases, the utilities have expressed concern
with not being able to identify the right points of contact
at the telecommunication providers with them.
And then we hear the inverse.
And can you talk a little bit about
what are the topics you're gonna be talking about?
And what's the work plan?
Are you getting specific, as an example, to talk about
opportunities for coordinated backup power,
coordinated locations on keeping towers lit,
at a minimum, for wireless connectivity?
There's already an overlap with your infrastructure.
Is there a more specific set of planning
that you could be doing with these providers
so that customers can at least retain their,
as much communication and connectivity as possible?
-: Yes, I think that our overall general approach
is that we want to first start off
with listening to what the pain points are.
And we also want to integrate
the new CPUC decision on resiliency for telecom providers.
We have a business customer division
that meets with these critical customers
and our Business Customer Division
will be meeting to discuss and help enable
the resiliency plans for each of these customers.
And so, I imagine that as the agenda gets developed
for this first meeting at the end of March,
we'll be getting specific as to how we can
best support and partner with our telecom customers.
-: And just as an example, you mention you're targeting
these 72 circuits where you would be reviewing
the possibility of how to mitigate the PSPSes,
that you have identified these circuits
as likely PSPS areas.
Do you have a plan with the telecommunication providers
for each of those circuits?
-: I think I might have to reach out
to some of the others on this panel
to help out with that question.
Tom: Hey, Jessica, it's Tom Brady.
I'll just add that in 2020, we did meet
with the major telecom providers
within our service territory,
in coordination with our Business Customer Division,
and did provide those telecom companies
with a list of their most frequently impacted circuits
to assist with resiliency planning,
understanding that although weather conditions can change,
what's occurred in the past is often
a good predictor of future PSPS impacts.
So we'll look to do that again in 2021
to help the telecom providers
prioritize their resiliency efforts
in the locations that are most at risk
for potential de-energization.
-: And do they meet with you,
along with the emergency first responders
that you are coordinating with?
Are they at the table as well?
Tom: So when we have the monthly,
or not the monthly, when we have our meetings
with the county emergency management agencies
that are gonna happen before March 31st,
the telecom providers aren't currently invited.
But I will share that the telecom providers
are included in our working groups and advisory boards.
And so that's an opportunity to work
through lessons learned and solicit feedback
and sort of an information sharing forum
with multiple partners in the same forum.
Marybel: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Thank you.
So Jessica, I think you mentioned
that your advisory group is meeting this week?
And would you describe who's on the advisory,
which entities are represented on that advisory group?
-: Yes, give me one moment.
-: And maybe a little back up on how you chose this group?
-: Okay, so we are starting with
the working groups, Commissioner, this week.
I know you're asking about the advisory group,
but maybe I'll just provide some context
on the working groups first.
These are regionalized working groups.
And they are made up of different regions
in terms of our territory.
So we have three meetings coming up this week.
And they are made up of the different IOUs,
communication and water service providers,
CPUC staff, community choice aggregators,
small multi-jurisdictional electric utilities,
tribal and local government entities,
public safety partners,
and representatives of those
with Access and Functional Needs.
And advisory board consists of public safety partners,
communications and water service providers,
local and tribal government officials,
business groups, non-profit organizations,
representatives of AFN, and academic organizations.
-: Okay, and these are compiled on a regional basis
so that there is a sense for the localized needs?
-: Correct, so there are three regions, as I mentioned.
The first region is Los Angeles,
Orange, Ventura, and Santa Barbara County
Region five is Kern, Tulare, Fresno, Madera,
and Tuolumne County, sorry, I can't pronounce that.
And then region six is San Bernardino,
Riverside, Mano, and Inyo County.
Genevieve: Okay. All right, thank you.
-: Sure.
Marybel: I think we can move on now.
Tom: Okay, so Tom Brandy here again.
Wanting to spend a few minutes on slide eight
to discuss the improvements we are making
to our post-event reporting protocols
to ensure that we're describing
each of de-energization events
in a clear, transparent, and compliant manner.
We did complete an initial gap analysis
of our current post-event reporting template
by reviewing regulatory decisions
and considering input from our stakeholders,
including intervenors, public safety partners,
as well as the Commission.
This effort allowed us to begin to identify further areas
where we do need to provide additional information
in our post-event reports to better
and more comprehensively describe the factors we consider
when deciding to activate for a PSPS event,
notify customers, and de-energize circuits.
Some initial examples of the changes we're making
based on these lessons learned include
strengthening our data validation,
our quality assurance and quality control activities,
separately and clearly describing
multiple periods of concern for complex events,
comprehensively reporting complaints,
and providing notification status
of Medical Baseline customers.
We did make initial changes
to our February 4th post-event report
to begin implementing some of these learnings.
And we do acknowledge that more work
still needs to be done in this area
prior to the 2021 fire season.
We intend to use Phase 3 of the PSPS OIR
to seek further clarity on the expectations
and preferred reporting framework
for future post-event reporting activities.
This will include gleaning into
our ongoing benchmarking efforts
with our sister IOUs to align on best practices.
We will continue to work closely with Commission staff
to discuss the results of our gap analysis
and to solicit input on planned enhancements
to content, format, or other parameters,
to make sure we are coming into alignment
on expectations and requirements.
With that, I will close and pause for questions,
before handing it back to Erik to discuss next steps.
Marybel: You said that you were reporting
in a list of things that you said, I may have missed it.
You said you're reporting complaints.
To whom are you reporting the complaints?
Tom: I'm sorry, can you please repeat the question?
Marybel: I thought you said something
about reporting complaints,
when you listed the various things you're doing.
And I want to know to whom -: Yeah, so--
Marybel: No, go ahead, go ahead.
Tom: Yeah, so, one of the areas that we believe
that we have a gap that we need to have more information in
is how we report a complaint in the post-event report.
So we have always reported complaints,
but prior to our most recent event, those complaints
were generally formal complaints
that were filed with the Commission.
In our 2021 post-events and starting with
the post event report that we recently submitted,
we did begin including additional complaints,
such as the ones that are filed
with our Consumer Affairs groups,
as well as formal complaints
that we receive through the Commission
and through our liaison officers during events.
Marybel: Thank you.
Tom: You're welcome.
-: Okay, if there are no further questions,
I think we can move to slide nine.
This is the last slide for the presentation today.
A lot of what's listed here we actually covered
throughout the presentation,
in discussing the upcoming working group
and advisory board meetings,
upcoming community engagement meetings
to solicit feedback and hear from our customers,
and also additional meetings with local elected leaders,
local government tribes, critical infrastructure customers,
and our public safety partners.
One thing I just want to,
if there are any other questions, but I just want to thank,
you, President Batjer, and the Commissioners,
for your really great questions about the feedback.
We really appreciate the engagement today.
We believe that the action plan that we've outlined
is a significant step towards addressing
the issues raised throughout 2020.
And we do look forward to the next part of the session
of the public comment.
Marybel: Thank you, Erik.
Just real quickly,
and then I'll turn to my fellow Commissioners.
You just listed all of the working groups on slide nine.
One of the things I needed to clarify earlier
and perhaps did not is, have you actually dedicated
people within the company for a liaison
specifically to the county, people that have
operational awareness and understanding
so that they can very quickly and efficiently address
the county questions and concerns in a real-time manner?
-: Yeah, and Mr. Brady, I think this might be
a good question for you, because I think
you live in this space every day.
Tom: Yeah, that's great, Erik.
Happy to answer the question.
So, specific to government partners,
let me get my video back on here,
we do communicate directly with them
through a liaison officer on our Incident Management team.
So that's a 24 by 7, dedicated point of contact
between local and state government partners
and our Incident Management team.
Relatedly, on the emergency management side,
we do have a business resiliency duty manager
and PSPS lead coach, who are a direct conduit
into the emergency management agencies
at both the county and state levels.
And so there's a lot of ongoing and frequent conversations
between the business resiliency contacts
and those emergency management officials,
both formally and then also on an adhoc basis
as issues or concerns come up during each event.
Marybel: Okay, I'm sure we're going to have
followup questions in our regular meetings
to make sure that those are really tight contacts.
So, okay, thank you.
And I think Commissioner Rechtschaffen, you had a question.
-: Thank you, I have a comment first and then a question.
In terms of next steps, I just want to let you know
that our public outreach team has observed
that at some of your PSPS public meetings
you're not leaving enough time
for public comments and questions.
I think it's very, very important that you try to do that.
And we've heard this criticism about the other utilities
and it applies to us, I'm sure, as well,
that there's too much information
just thrown at ratepayers and customers,
and not enough time for the give and take in the feedback.
So, this is something that we've observed,
so we ask you to try to adopt your meetings in a way
that you leave enough time
for public comments and questions.
So, that's the comment.
And the question I have is last year you had a program
where you provided some refunds to customers
resulting from certain financial harm,
food spoilage and things like that,
if you didn't provide adequate notice,
advance notice of a shutoff.
Are you planning a similar program for this year?
-: I can take that question.
Yes, so, Commissioner, you're referring
to our 2019 claims exemption process
that we had instituted last year.
We are currently looking at alternatives
for our customers impacts to food loss
and we will report back if we have made progress
in the exploration of alternatives.
But for now we still have our current claims process
that is in effect.
-: So that means you're honoring the same process
that you used before?
-: That means that the 2019 exemption is no longer in effect
and we are utilizing our current claims process,
which does not include that exemption as it has expired.
-: But, you're evaluating whether or not
to include that going forward?
-: We're evaluating something that might be similar,
whether it makes sense to include going forward,
which also could include other ideas
that are not related to claims.
-: What would those other ideas be?
-: So they would be more in the vein of program solutions,
such as more donations to food banks
or similar programs that PG&E is implementing.
So we're starting with looking at
what types of customers are impacted
to see if we can come up with those programmatic solutions.
And we're just in the beginning exploration stages.
-: Do you have an estimate of the number of claims
you got this last Fall, this last fire season,
with all the shutoffs, Fall and Winter?
-: We do have all the claims metrics
that we can followup with if necessary.
-: Yes, thank you.
I'd be interested in that.
And also I'd be interested in hearing back
when you determine how you're gonna proceed
on this issue going forward.
-: Definitely.
Marybel: Any other questions?
Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Just one last question from me, for today.
I know you're planning for the 2021 season,
and ordinarily we would be talking about
the Summer to Fall timeframe.
But those PSPSes around the holidays
and around the New Year were startling.
So, in your outlook, for the team's outlook for 2021,
are you planning for the potential
for the season to start far earlier?
You've outlined activities in March and April,
going into June.
Are you also prepared that you may have to invoke
PSPSes in the middle of all of your outreach efforts,
and are you ready for that?
-: Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
I'll take this.
So we are concerned about the weather this year.
The lack of precipitation seems to have carried over so far.
Certainly it's still, time will tell,
over the course of the next month or two.
I think at least according to our meteorologist,
the La Nina pattern is expected to kind of loosen up
and start to diminish beginning in April.
So, I think we are seeing potentially
some upcoming precipitation, but certainly right now,
our outlook at this time looks to be dryer.
So, in terms of the preparation, it is on our minds
that the folks that are working really hard
and getting our plans ready,
we're gonna have to, and are planning to supplement,
to be able to conduct operational activities,
while in the midst of improving the situation
for our customers, which is the highest priority.
And so we, operationally, just need to supplement
our resources with that ability to continue.
-: All right, thank you.
Marybel: Do we have any other questions, Commissioners?
All right, I will fill in one question.
I know you've given us some good timeframes here,
March, June.
I hope, and we will continue to ask these questions of you,
because there's still things that are underway,
gonna be done, soon will be done,
and it's extremely important, as you all well know,
that all of this be done well before fire season,
particularly your communications with the communities,
tribal governments, the local governments.
The battery backup is so incredibly important.
And we, almost every Commission meeting,
we have public comment of concern,
not only whether they have battery backup,
but the cost of battery backup.
So very critical to stay on track with all of that.
And as I said, we will be making sure,
in our every other week meetings,
that we're tracking with you on your accomplishments
and that you're nailing those timeframes.
I think somebody said a lot going on with very little time,
and I'll just underscore that, that's so true.
All right, any other questions?
Okay, seeing none, we will now turn to public comment.
Let me just say, if you wish to make a public comment,
dial into 800-857-1917
and enter pass code 8147204 pound,
and press star-one to be placed into the queue
and the operator will take your name and information.
If you have already dialed in
to the public comment telephone line,
please press star-one to get into the public comment queue.
We will allot two minutes of time
for your comment, for you speak.
You will hear a bell.
You will hear a bell sound when your time is up.
And please, be mindful of other speakers in the queue
and keep to your allotted time of two minutes.
With that guidance in mind,
I welcome today's callers in the public comment period.
I will now turn to the operator
to open the public comment telephone line.
Operator.
Joseph: Thank you.
The public comment line is now open.
Our first speaker is
Rachel Wong, your line is open.
Rachel: Hi, there.
Can you hear me okay?
Marybel: Yes, we can hear you, Rachel.
Rachel: Hi, my name's Rachael Wong.
I'm the Associate University Engineer
at California State University Chancellor's Office.
I am listening in today on behalf of some of our campuses,
and I have a request for kind of more robust
and transparent reporting on the work
that SCE has done to date to kind of strengthen
the resilience of our electric grid,
as well as maybe something along the lines
of a prioritization matrix and a timeline
for when each project that is coming along the pipe,
for example the 72 circuits
and anything else that's relevant,
so that us, as customers, we are able,
and our campuses are able to plan
to improve our own infrastructure
and improve our own infrastructure resilience.
And then my last point is just that access
to reliable infrastructure is an equity issue.
So, if we could develop this reporting to maybe
also include some socioeconomic and demographic data,
of the impacted communities, that would be great.
Marybel: Thank you very much, Rachel.
Operator, the next caller please.
Joseph: Yes, thank you.
Our next speaker is Reese Holland.
Your line is open.
Marybel: Please go ahead.
Reese Holland, please go ahead.
Joseph: Mr. Holland, please check your mute button.
Marybel: Okay, we seem to be having
some difficulties with Mr. Holland's line.
Would you like to go on to the next caller,
and hopefully that line will be able to be reopened.
Joseph: Yes, ma'am.
Our next speaker is Nasisa Gobian.
Your line is open.
Nasisa: President Batjer and Commissioners,
Nasisa Gobian, city of Santa Clarita.
On behalf of the Santa Clarita City Council,
I want to express our appreciation
for the Commission's attention to this critical matter
and the opportunity to provide public comment.
Surrounded by mountain passes and canyons,
the city historically experiences
strong Santa Ana winds during the Fall and Winter season,
with gusts up to 70 miles per hour.
And over the last three years, our residents and businesses
have experienced several Edison PSPS events,
significantly impacting public wellbeing and safety.
At times, these power shutoff events
have impacted over 25,000 households and businesses
at periods of over 24 consecutive hours,
including major power loss events
during the holidays at the end of last year.
We full-heartedly appreciate the accessibility demonstrated
by local representatives of Edison, however,
in an effort to ensure immediate reliable electrical service
we respectfully urge the Commission to mandate
Edison harden their infrastructure in an expedited manner,
with a defined and accelerated schedule
to target and harden circuits most impacted by PSPS events,
and that serve the greatest number of customers,
and that circuits and infrastructure in Santa Clarita
be included in the expedited hardening plans,
and PSPS exception efforts as appropriate.
This concludes my comments. and I appreciate the opportunity
to share our comments on this matter.
Thank you.
Joseph: Thank you.
Our next question comes from Reese Holland.
Your line is open.
Reese: Hello, I hope you can hear me this time.
Unfortunately, I was watching on the website
and the latency between that and the phone
was a little bit off.
So, I appreciate that we're having this meeting here
and CPUC, I appreciate it.
SCE it's a good for you to show up.
I, unfortunately, think this needs to be redone,
or at least the comment section from the public
needs to be done at a later time,
with a longer comment period,
so that way working class folks
who should be probably working right now
and probably can't really take time off
to comment on this can actually participate.
I think that was part of the reason
why we had so many participants last time, perhaps,
but even if it wasn't, we definitely need
to really open the door and allow
a lot more communication on this.
Quite honestly, all I'm hearing is still
a whole lot of half solutions.
I feel like the infrastructure issues
are things that we've known about since I was a kid.
I've been in the area for all of 36 years.
And quite honestly, we're way behind.
Things needed to have been entrenched.
Things needed to have been set up to be as resistant.
We know that there's winds.
We know that there's fires.
That's always been the case here.
The fact that we're doing half measures
to try to protect and work around them,
instead of using the most efficient
and powerful technology we have
to protect ourselves from these events entirely.
And part of the problem I think is really just
the amount of profit that goes into and comes out
of the company and how much that really ought to be banned.
All profit is basically money that wasn't spent
to fix the infrastructure and take care of these issues.
It's kind of a big problem.
Instead that money, that profit, ends up being used to lobby
and try to fight to shield themselves from liability.
So I think banning profits from SCE and PG&E
for the next 20 years would probably a good start.
Otherwise they can just donate their assets
and infrastructure of the state of California.
And we can just basically municipalize it.
I feel like that's really
the sort of solutions that we need.
There's a memo coming from UCLA Public Policy Department
that will be sent to CPUC and SCE and PG&E
about the current use of power and the state of things.
I think that was my ring, so I'll send that along.
Thank you very much.
Marybel: Thank you very much.
I'm glad you were able to get back in.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Joseph: Thank you.
Our next comment comes from Jacqueline Ayer.
Your line is open.
Jacqueline: Hello. Thank you, Commissioners.
My name is Jacquelyn Ayer,
and I am the Utilities Committee Chair
for the Acton Town Council.
And I'm very grateful for this opportunity to address you.
There is a lot that the Acton Town Council
would like to say about Edison's performance in 2020
and its corrective action plan,
but we'll focus on just a few things.
First, Edison has reported that
it was abnormal Fall weather conditions in 2020
that drove its successive PSPS activities.
But you need to know that there was nothing abnormal
about the Fall weather conditions in 2020.
In fact, for half of the years since 1998
rainfall in our area was at or below the rainfall levels
that occurred in the Fall of 2020.
In other words, what we experienced in 2020
will be the norm for us on average going forward.
Second, Edison keeps telling you that PSPS decisions
are based on when windblown debris poses an ignition risk,
which is 31 miles sustained, 46 miles per hour gusts.
However, these are not the de-energization thresholds
that Edison uses in Acton.
In fact, on Thanksgiving Day, Edison cut power in Acton
based on the 25 mile an hour de-energization threshold,
which is one reason why our community
was so terribly impacted that day.
This fact is shown clearly in Edison's
post-event report filed on December 11th.
They are not telling you the truth
when they say they're using 31 and 46.
Third, a discovery response received from Edison
just last week regarding their January PSPS activities
reports that 450 distribution infrastructure elements
have been designated as high P2,
with a failure potential within six months,
particularly under windy conditions.
Edison de-energizes facilities based on circuit health,
and in Acton, our circuits are not healthy,
and we have paid for it, because Edison cuts power in Acton
at wind speeds that are much less than the 31, 46 thresholds
that they're telling you.
Fourth, in a discovery response from Edison,
we have learned that even when our distribution lines
are replaced with covered conductor,
Edison is still going to apply adjustments and multipliers
that will result in lower wind speed
PSPS thresholds in Acton compared to other areas.
These adjustments are based on factors
that have nothing to do (bell chiming).
Okay, thank you.
I will submit this in writing I guess.
There's a lot more to be said.
Thank you.
Marybel: Thank you, Ms. Ayer.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Joseph: President Batjer, there are no more speakers
on the public comment telephone line.
Marybel: Okay.
With that, we will close the public comment.
And I want to thank everyone who has joined
in the meeting today, for calling in,
and watching and observing.
I want to thank Edison for their participation
and their information.
And we look forward to a great deal of followup.
As I said, time is of the essence.
We appreciate your time and your effort very much.
So thank you all.
That ends the meeting.
-: Thank you.
Joseph: That concludes today's conference.
Thank you for your participation.