(soft music)
-: Welcome to the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board.
This is the board meeting
on this day, Wednesday, April 14th, 2021.
-: Welcome everyone to the second virtual board meeting
of the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board.
We are going to spend the next few minutes going
over the technology that will be used
during the meeting so that we can all start today's meeting
understanding the technology
and be prepared to participate in the meeting.
A summary of the interaction methods can be found
on today's agenda, which is on
the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website
www.cpusi.ca.gov/wsab.
This meeting is being live broadcast
at the normal CPC live broadcast location,
adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc.
To interact with the board during the meeting,
we have a phone number and an operator on standby
to cue the line.
The call-in number is listed on the agenda.
The phone number is +1 800-857-1917
and the passcode is 1767567.
When you join the call, you will be in listen only mode.
If you'd like to participate during the public comment,
please press star one on the phone
and you'll be added to the public comment queue
and called upon during the meeting
with the assistance of the operator.
There will be a public comment period at the beginning
of the meeting.
The public comment will also be received
at the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board email inbox
and that address is,
wildfiresafetyadvisoryboard@cpuc.ca.gov.
Comments received there will be read into the record
if they can be read in under three minutes.
If you have any additional questions
or trouble accessing the technology
please email the public advisor
and that's public.adviser@cpuc.ca.gov
or you can give them a call at (866) 849-8390.
And I will pass it over to Vice Chair, Fellman.
-: Thank you, Catherine.
I want to welcome everyone to our meeting and now we will...
I'm gonna call the meeting to order.
Today is 14th 2021.
As we've said, this is the second meeting
of the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board.
My name's Diane Fellman.
I am Vice Chair of the board and I will be chairing
the meeting until our chair, Marcie Edwards arrives.
I'd like to first of all, thank all my colleagues
for being here today and participating
and for all the hard work that you've done
to get us to this meeting.
I'd like to turn the meeting now over to our staff person,
our advisor Leah Herald to lead us in
the pledge of allegiance.
-: Thank you, Vice Chair, Fellman
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America and to the Republic
for which it stands, one nation under God
indivisible with Liberty and justice for all.
Now I turn the meeting over to Catherine Stockton
for our safety moment.
-: Catherine, you're on mute.
Could you please unmute?
Thank you.
-: Let me go to the next slide
it'll be a slide with a picture of a lung on it.
Very beautiful or perfect.
Thank you.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues,
most of us face more stress than ever before.
Many of us work from home so the boundaries
between our home and work life has blurred.
Many experience Zoom fatigue.
Recognizing these challenges,
please take a couple of minutes to breathe
and let go of any stress you might feel in this moment.
Next slide please.
We are doing our best to make this meeting
as accessible as possible.
All of the information about this meeting
can be found on the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board website
and that again, that is cpc.ca.gov/wsab.
Links to all the documents that we'll be discussing today
including the agenda, the revised recommendations
and the PowerPoint presentation are all available
on the website.
And I will pass it off to Vice Chair Fellman.
-: Thank you, Catherine.
First, we're gonna start going over today's agenda
so could we please have that slide.
Momentarily we're going to begin our meeting
with public comments so anyone who is on the line
be prepared to unmute your phone
and make your presence known to the operator.
After public comment, we will discuss and vote on
the minutes from the March 3rd, 2021 board meeting.
And following that, we're going to have a presentation
from a representative of the Wildfire Safety Division
on their activities.
After these presentations we will take a stretch break
and a brief recess.
After that the board will present its draft recommendations
on the 2021 wildfire mitigation plan updates
for the large investor owned utilities.
We have published that material on our website.
If you would like to access the document in real time.
Following that, all of the board members will discuss
their recommendations on those updates
and after a discussion, we will vote on
those recommendations and that vote will signal
our endorsement of the recommendations
with the exception of any members
who may want to have a concurrence or otherwise.
And we will forward that to the Wildfire Safety Division
for consideration and their review of the sufficiency
of the 2021 IOU updates.
Finally, once we make it through all of this
we will adjourn the meeting.
Before we get started on the business of the day,
I'd like to call upon any of the board members
who would like to make general opening comments
at this time.
If you would like to do so, please either raise your hand
or signify in the chat box
that you would like to speak now.
Hearing none, let's get down to the business of the day
and we're going to first open up the telephone lines
and move to our public comment.
If you'd like to participate in today's public comment
as Ms. Stockton said, the phone number is +1 800-857-1917
and the passcode is 1767567.
Please press star one on your phone to get in the queue.
I will now call on the operator.
Is the line open?
Operator: The public comment line is now open.
Our first speaker is Nancy Macy.
Your line is open.
Nancy: Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Edwards and members of the board.
I'm Nancy Macey, Chair of the Valley Women's Clubs
and Environmental Committee for the San Lorenzo Valley.
That's a tongue twister.
You have acknowledged our participation in the past
and we are very grateful for the additions you have made.
The main point I would like to stress is that PG and E
is being allowed to retain outdated unsafe infrastructure
in both transmission lines and distribution lines.
These ongoing failures to modernize are an emergency
that must be addressed quickly.
There are two aspects we hope you will add
to strengthen your newly revised document.
First is the failure of the CPUUC itself to update GO 95
and the other regulations affecting infrastructure
thus allowing for a small example, the 22,000 miles
of antiquated (indistinct)
their multiple spliced copper wire
to continue to threaten cities and towns and rural areas
and most especially high fire threat districts.
That's just one example.
Please point their dereliction
of responsibility out to them.
Second, is to mandate that PG and E
specifically, massively speed up it's hardening,
not simply to explore further.
That is a guarantee for ongoing wildfires
and inadequate mitigation attempts
of things like public safety power shutoffs
and enhanced vegetation management,
neither of which will prevent these wildfires.
Again, this is an emergency and we hope you will address
that very truth.
Our stress is not due to COVID
but to PG and E's egregiously failing
to a upgrade its infrastructure and it's environmentally
destructive actions that are continuing.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
I just want to mention a distinction
that we had to draw on the part of the board
and I want to point it out to the members
of the public and other stakeholders who may be listening.
That in this set of recommendations, we are commenting
and making suggestions to the Wildfires Safety Division
with respect to the 2021 IOU updates.
As soon as we complete this task
we are going to be developing recommendations
for inclusion in the investor on utilities 2022 updates
and suggesting revisions to the guidelines.
So thank you for comments with respect
to those types of issues as well.
So if they are not included in this round
of recommendations, please be aware that we are going
to the next year's guidelines and contents
and we will be adopting those in June of this year.
May we please have the next speaker?
Operator: The next speaker is Shana Nadavadi
Your line is open.
Please begin.
Please go ahead.
Shana: Hi there.
My name is Shana Nadavadi
and I'm a researcher with the local Clean Energy Alliance.
Some of the points that stood out to me
on these recommendations was that the IOUs
aren't currently providing information
on their modeling assumptions
and this directly impacts how they decide to shut off power
that a lot of elderly and disabled folks across the state
need to literally survive.
So this really tells me that PG and E
specifically their 2021 wildfire mitigation plan update
is clearly inadequate.
A lot of the data that is used to inform the IOU's
decisions is also not being made publicly available.
We need a lot more transparency
and ultimately enhanced reporting
and oversight is also necessary of this utility.
Another thing that I noticed was that the overall language
of these recommendations uses a lot of should, you know
that wildfire safety division should request
or should ask the IOUs to do better.
And only one instance do you all say that
the Wildfire Safety Division should order a utility
to do something and there needs to be
a lot more ordering going on
because we are tired of asking nicely.
So I would say that the advisory board
needs to tell the Wildfire Safety Division
not to approve PD and E's 2021
wildfire mitigation plan update
because they, along with the other IOUs
are not meeting reporting requirements among other things.
And whether or not these recommendations today are approved,
you all do need to demand more transparency
using stronger language in these and future recommendations
advising the Wildfire Safety Division to order the IOUs
to do everything in their ability
to finally stop murdering Californians.
Thank you.
Diane: Thank you.
Next public speaker.
Operator: Our next speaker is Will Abrams.
Abrams, go ahead please.
Will: Thanks very much.
Good afternoon.
My name is Willie Abrams.
I'm a party to a number of the different proceedings
around wildfire mitigation.
and I wanna thank the Wildfire Safety Board
for their revised comments and recommendations
on the utility wildfire mitigation plans.
These are critically important documents
that in many ways describe the degree
to which our residents across California
will or will not be safe from utility ignited wildfires
over the next eight plus months.
That said, I wanted to bring to the board's attention
a few items that are less apparent
from the review of these plans.
The first point is that the efficacy
of these plans is undermined
due to the lack of transparency surrounding
the CAL FIRE reports that are critical
for our ability to make improvements
in these wildfire mitigation plans.
We're caught in this vicious cycle
where these reports are leveraged by the utilities
and other parties as bargaining chips
towards financial ends.
In exchange for greater dollar seller
mints reports are revised and information is buried
out of sight with an inability for parties
and utilities to leverage the information contained
in these reports to increase our safety and security.
Very directly we are bargaining away our safety
in exchange for short term payouts.
The second point is that the investors
in our utilities have come to an understanding
that they can escape the accountability associated
with safety plans.
And that is really baked in.
This is why the stock price remains high.
As PG and E as an example,
faces increased criminal charges,
increased regulatory restrictions and civil suits.
Shareholders have grown accustomed to PG and E's
proven ability to buy down several settlements
in civil suits, influence stakeholders
towards PG and E beneficial outcomes
and to avoid any regulatory entanglements
through waived fines, rubber stamped safety certifications
amidst growing criminal and regulatory safety violations.
This environment allows for excuses and claims
of ignorance to suffice where it real wildfire
mitigation should take place.
PG and E has conveniently misappropriated
the risk term black Swan throughout
their wildfire mitigation plan,
throughout their pleadings
in Judge Olson's court
and in other CQC proceedings.
To say they couldn't possibly have known about problems
with jumpers and PSPS management issues
that contributed to the Kincade fire
and couldn't have known about
the Zogg Fire Vegetation Management
and inappropriate use of wind data.
The point here is simple,
in the vacuum left to a lack of accountability
in civil criminal and regulatory proceedings,
utilities like PG and E are able to substitute
these black Swan excuses
for the types of mitigations we need.
We need to require that the utility specifically map
and address failures from past fires.
Almost universally across the WMPs,
our utilities don't even mention the fires
that they have caused to date and neither the Commission
or the Wildfires Safety--
-: Your three minutes have passed.
Is it possible to wrap up in about 30 more seconds?
-: Yes, I will do that.
I apologize.
Thank you.
-: No problem.
-: Thanks. Yeah. So the important thing
is that we can't leave the wildfire mitigation plans
without addressing past failures.
We need to make sure that we are learning from past mistakes
to get out of this vicious cycle that we're in.
We have to make sure that every utility maps.
Here's where we failed for this fire and that fire
and here's how we've addressed it.
It's been two years since the Kincade fire
and still PGE admits that they caused the fire,
their equipment caused the fire,
yet they have not incorporated into their risk modeling.
It's things like that that should not be happening
going forward and I encourage the board to please advocate
to make sure that these plans change
before they are approved.
The board is in a unique position
and I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
And I just want to remind you as well as everyone
that we do accept written comments at any time
and I believe the email address is up on the screen,
but it is,
wildfiresafetyadvisoryboard@cpuc.
All one word, @cpc.ca.gov.
So we welcome comments of any length
through our email distribution.
Could we please have the next speaker?
Operator: The next speaker is Henry Burton.
Your line is open.
Please go ahead.
Henry: Hi, thank you, members of the board.
Thank you for taking time to hear comments.
My name is Henry Burton.
I'm the supervisor of the Wildfire Safety Group
in the Public Advocate's Office at the CPAC
and I wanted to say that the public Advocate's Office
appreciates the board's emphasis on effective
and evidence-based approaches to reducing wildfire risk.
The board's review has provided a scientific
and technical perspective that is much needed
and the public advocate's office agrees
with several of the WSAB's recommendations.
So I wanna call attention to three particular topics.
First is more scrutiny of risk modeling.
We agree that the wildfire risk models need expert review.
Utilities wildfire risk models influence
which mitigation utilities select where and when.
This has become an urgent issue
because in the past few months
PG and E introduced a new risk model
that changes the risk scores of individual circuit segments
and largely reverses the prioritization of circuits.
Additionally Mussey Grade Road Alliance
has raised serious doubts about the wildfire risk models
that all the utilities use
especially PG and E but also the other large utilities.
So last year, the Public Advocate's Office
recommended requiring the utilities
to publish validation analysis
and retaining an expert consultant.
This year we recommended convening a technical working group
open to all stakeholders to examine each risk model.
And we think the board's recommendation of establishing
a process for peer review by academic experts
is a very good idea.
The second area I wanna mention is quality of work.
We appreciate the board's attention to workforce training
and quality of work.
One of the themes that the Public Advocate's Office
has emphasized in our comments
is that effective wildfire mitigation
is about not just what you do,
but how well you do it.
And so we support the board's recommendations
on improving training for vegetation management contractors,
increasing auditing and oversight
and developing a qualified workforce for system hardening.
Lastly I wanna mention developing
and sharing best practices.
In our review of the WMTS we noted significant differences
between the utilities in areas such as inspection practices
with (indistinct) their settings
and cost of covered conductor.
There's an opportunity, a big opportunity
for utilities to share knowledge and data
and adopt mitigation practices that are supported
by the evidence.
So we support the board's recommendation
to Commission independent studies
of the effectiveness of wildfire mitigation practices.
And the WSAB has been providing valuable input
on vegetation management in particular.
We support the recommendation to consult with ecologists
and develop environmentally sensitive practices
for vegetation management.
It's Worth noting that last May,
the Wildfire Safety Division directed the utilities
to work together to study how they identify risky trees
and implement broader clearances.
Unfortunately, it took the utilities until January 6th
of this year to start holding regular meetings
for the purpose of developing a unified plan
on vegetation management.
And we think that is a really unfortunate delay.
I appreciate your time and appreciate
the work that you're all doing.
-: Thank you.
And thank you for...
We appreciate you coming in today.
May we have the next speaker.
Operator: The next speaker is Pete Wyanoldi.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Pete: Good afternoon, board members.
My name is Pete Wynoldi
I'm a member
of the Reclaim our power Utility Justice Campaign.
And we organize with fire survivors
and people with disabilities in low income communities
and people of color communities
across California that has been burned down,
shut off, smoked out and punished
for specifically PGE's failures to keep us safe.
Very much appreciative of the comments
from the other callers today
and appreciative of this board holding this space.
I just wanna draw attention to a couple of things.
One, as the public advocate's office just mentioned
that they put out an excellent report pointing
to the failures of a PGE's plan coming into this meeting
and specifically pointing to the poor management
and the failure of oversight, failure of quality of work
versus just having checked the box
that they've done work,
the grossly deficient tree trimming plan,
about prioritization and consistently prioritizing
what is easiest as opposed to what actually keeps us safe.
Insufficient inspections and failures
of covering distribution lines with high risk
and not putting resources into grid upgrades and hardening,
as opposed to just cutting down the most trees
to make it look like they're doing good work.
I also wanna point to a couple of things
that folks said just a moment ago.
Now, the Public Advocate's Office just mentioning
they said that they needed to do better work
around prioritizing in January and didn't...
In last May and didn't start till January.
What happened in between them was the Zogg fire
which killed four people and burned down thousands of acres.
And this is a consistent rhythm around everything
that I've just said.
Everything that you've heard before
PG and E valuing the profit motive
and valuing their ability to gain the system.
And I say that specifically to this board
especially given their response in the press today
responding to the Public Advocate's office.
Public Advocate putting forward very thoughtful comments
about their insufficient plan.
Their lawyers are quoted in the press today saying,
operational gaps identified in 2020 are not a basis
for denying the 2021 plan.
How I hear that?
And I think the people of California hear that,
we may have screwed up before
but we think we can get away with it again.
So this plan that should go forward
even though we haven't addressed all of the things
that are very clearly wrong with the plans of the past
and which have led to the deaths of over a hundred people
in California and radically altered eco scape,
the lungs of people across California being burned out
and people living in the communities
that we work with living in fear
of this company choosing profit over their lives.
So we encourage you to take all the information from today,
reject this plan, put forward a recommendation
to reject this plan, join into the conversation
of projecting PGD safety certificate
that I know the CPC are here tomorrow
and make clear that this organization
can no longer gain the systems in front of them.
And they needed to do something radically different
and hand the power over to the people
and take it out of the hands of the profits of it.
Thank you for your time.
-: Thank you for your comments.
Operator, do we have any other public commenters
who's on the phone?
Operator: Yes, we do have another comment.
This one is from Robin Snakham.
The line is open please go ahead
John: Is that Robin McCollum?
Operator: I assume so.
I apologize
Please. Go ahead.
Robin: Okay. And I see that you can hear me.
I'm the retired Butte County Public Works Tree Foreman
and I've been watching PG and E's
bad works since about 1985.
I used to permit their construction
and I'm also a 35 year wild land firefighter.
I did that coincidentally with my work at the County
as an unlimited caller forest or an arborist
from these perspectives
that I've been criticizing PG and E.
It is unnecessary to remove all these trees.
They were increasing their right of ways
well beyond anything necessary
for any practical protection of their equipment.
As they were approaching it,
it's equivalent to bailing the ocean
in order to save a sinking boat.
They're attacking our environment to accommodate
their equipment that is not built for the environment.
The solution is covered conductors.
I'm speaking in generalities.
I'm pleased by the technicalities that I see
that you've addressed in the draft document today
that needs to be included.
There's the potential with covering conductors
and some kind of circuit protection
we would not be having all these fires
as it is with the bare wire
which is the constant threat throughout.
Whenever a branch falls and causes a fire
as PGE puts it, there's a bare wire.
That is actually what causes the sparking.
Animals, balloons wire slapped from the wind, et cetera.
And unfortunately the legislature and the Governor
has been listening to PG and E's mythology
that trees are the problem
and have given PGE 142 95
and other legislation discretion, sole discretion
at which trees to take from private land
outside of their existing easements
without regard to private property or the environment.
And we assumed that they would be exercising
proper discernment but by the clear cuts that we've seen
in these projects, there's no discernment, whatever.
They're just going by a spatial distance.
No regard to hazard or condition of the trees themselves.
As we see that there's increasing numbers
of equipment fires over the years
it's not climate change that only influences severity
but the increasing number of fires is a reflection
of the age of the system as
with the caribou Palermo line that caused
the campfire in Paradise and is detailed
but in the District Attorney's report,
the Butte County District Attorney's investigation,
the report showed that there was a lack of maintenance,
their run to failure model within PG and E
and that's what's consistent here.
The remote distribution lines
and the high fire threat area are aging out,
the connectors are losing their grip.
The wire's been brittle from years and years.
There's a service life on these wires.
They need to be replaced.
In the case of--
-: Excuse me, I'm sorry, your time is up.
Could you please summarize.
And then again, we welcome your written comments
to our email address.
-: Yes. And I'm glad to hear that.
Send comments.
Yes. Well, I think that there's a perverse incentive
for PG and E to have a side business of tree cutting.
It has nothing really to do,
and they must know that,
to the safety of their lines.
But it's a huge, it's become
a huge multi-million dollar industry.
Thank you very much for your time.
-: Thank you for participating today.
We welcome public comment from all.
Operator, are there any more public comments on the line?
-: Yes. Thank you.
We do have another comment from Dan Courtney.
Your line is open please go ahead.
Dan: Hi, thank you.
Oh, sorry.
What is the period of time?
Diane: Three minutes.
Dan: Okay. Thank you.
So my name is Dan Courtney.
I own a property outside Yosemite in Twomey County.
The address is, 11250 Sawmill Mountain Road.
And I'm calling and making comments
from the perspective of a property owner.
We saw that, myself and my neighbors and a lot of people
in these mountain communities have had ongoing issues
with PG and E for years and years
where they can come into the property
with their contractors and cut down trees.
A lot of times without giving the owners the chance to
inspect the trees first.
And a lot of times they're cutting
the wrong trees, unfortunately and what's happening now
with the enhanced vegetation management is
they're marking trees,
which are healthy green trees.
They say healthy green trees are a threat to their lines
and they have more trees that are like
100, 150 years.
A lot of feet from the power lines trees
some which are old go threes 400, 500 years old.
And it's an issue because there are beautiful
healthy trees that have been inspected
and by certified foresters and verified to be good.
But the real reason I'm calling in is
because of the way that they go about doing this.
Bylaw by 42 95.5, they are required to provide notice
and an opportunity to be heard by the property owner.
There was no mechanism for doing that.
For example, in my case I had
a registered professional forester prepare a report
analyzing the trees that they marked
and I have no one to send it to because
the CPC doesn't have a process for that
for the forestry, CALl FIRE does not have that process.
The attorneys have said that we have to exhaust
our administrative remedies prior
to filing a lawsuit, I guess, PG and E
but there don't seem to be, I mean
any administrative remedies.
So that's one thing and I will send in written comments
and have in the past with regards to that.
The real issue here is as you probably,
as I'm sure everyone here knows,
is the condition of the lines.
So we have power poles here that were burned
in the Rim fire, which was in 2013.
So going on eight years, which still haven't been replaced.
They're burned, charred, you know,
from bottom almost to top.
And we have these seven-year-old indexes
to 70 year old bare uninsulated wires
because I asked what is the threat?
How does fire start from a tree or branch striking it?
It is because I guess when the wires come into contact,
because they're not insulated
they spark out and can spark fires.
The work that they're doing I think
has been more counterproductive than productive
in some ways, because they've clearcut during the Rim Fire
they clear cut a large area around on each side
of the power lines.
Now we get this really strong winds come in
which knocked over the next layers of trees.
And my understanding of that wind
when there's a fire that starts to the downwind
the flaming brands are going to be propelled
along those wind tunnels and coming right in
along the power line tunnels and creating more, more havoc.
Additionally, when they cut these trees
and the trees are gone, we get more sunlight.
And now we're getting all this other dry brushes
growing right under the power lines.
And it doesn't seem like an effective way.
So we really want to be advocating for the CPC
to not certify them as safe,
PG and E is safe with a certificate.
They're not, we all know that and it has to do more work.
They've got to spend money
on the lines cause that's the only thing
that will really bring safety to the mountain regions.
We are, by the way in a high fire threat district
number two and borderline--
-: Excuse me, excuse me, sir.
Your three minutes are up.
Can you please wrap up?
-: No, that's fine.
I think I said enough
and I appreciate your time and everybody's working on this
and we really wish you all the best
and hopefully you can get some good...
PGE need to get in line as, I understand that STG and E
have been doing.
Thank you.
-: Thank you so much.
Operator, is there another public speaker on the phone?
Operator: We do not have any other public speakers
right now.
-: All right.
Thank you very much for everyone who spoke.
We really appreciate it.
Now we'll turn to our email box.
Prior to the meeting Ms. Stockton,
were there any comments filed through our email box?
We have not received any comments through the email box.
I imagine that will change after this meeting.
So, and for those who are watching
when comments come into the email box
our advisors distributed them to all the board members.
So we will all be looking at those
and reviewing them and considering them in our work.
So thank you very much.
We will now close public comment.
We will move into the next topic on the agenda.
If we could move to the next slide and this will be...
Oh thank you.
We're already there.
This is the adoption of the minutes.
The meeting minutes can be found on again, on our webpage.
And I want to make sure that all the board members
have had an opportunity to review the minutes.
Are there any edits or additions to the minutes?
If not, I'll entertain a motion
to adopt the meeting minutes.
Armstrong: I'll entertain that motion, Vice Chair.
Diane: Board member Armstrong has moved.
Board member Porter, is seconding.
Maybe we now have a vote and signify by saying aye.
And I think raising your hand so we can all
see who's voting.
All: Aye, aye.
Diane: It looks like it's unanimous.
So thank you very much for your vote.
Do we have...
Ms. Morgan's ready to make her presentation on behalf
of me Wildfire Safety Division.
-: Hi. Yes I'm ready.
-: All right. Very good.
May we now feature her and Ms. Morgan, you may begin.
-: Well, thank you very much
and thanks for inviting me along today to provide an update.
Moving on to the first slide, please.
So I'll be providing an update
on the Wildfire Safety Divisions activities
since the last board meeting.
So I'm gonna cover three key areas.
The first is to provide an update
on the wildfire mitigation plan evaluation process.
Secondly, to provide an update
on the annual safety culture assessment
and thirdly, to provide an update on
the wildfire safety divisions transitioned
to the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety.
Next slide please, thanks.
So in terms of the wildfire mitigation plan
evaluation process,
a number of key things have happened
since the last board meeting.
Firstly, we had the SMJU/ITO workshop on the 23rd of March
and then we also received public comments
and reply comments on the large utilities WMP
towards the end of March and then on the 13th of April.
And then on the 2nd of April, we received
the WSC comments and draft and needs were finalized,
I believe, yesterday and circulated.
So I would like to thank the WSAB members for their time
dedication and commitment to developing
these recommendations for the WSP
to take into consideration in our evaluation process.
So in terms of what our focus has been over the past month,
we've been clarifying and resolving that WMP issues
through the data request process or via meetings
with utilities.
We've been identifying critical issues
that may warrant a revision notice.
So we are moving away from the process that we had last year
where they were a conditional approvals
for WMP and this year we're going down the road
of a revision notice.
So that's where critical issue is identified
and then a revision notice may be issued
and then the utility will be required to address
that in 30 days.
And there will be the opportunity
for public comment and reply comments on the submission
from the utility in response to the revision notice.
So this, if any revision is our issue
then that would extend the timeline of WSPs evaluation
of the WMPs but still provides an opportunity
to address these critical issues.
And then thirdly, we've been drafting the action statements
and resolutions and these will comprise the determination
of WMP through this new process.
So moving on to the next slide.
In terms of next steps, we are expecting a revision notice
for the large utilities in early May
and in late May we're expecting to be able to make
a determination of the large utility WMPs
that have not been issued with a revision notice
and in early June we're expecting to issue
a new revision to the SMJU/ITO and then June
we would also make the determination
of whether that SMJU/ITO WMPs will be denied or accepted.
And that will be those that were not issued
for the revision notice.
So it gets a little bit complicated
and then late summer would be the point
at which we'll be able to provide determination
of WMPs that required a revision notice.
Moving on to the next slide.
So the second thing I want to provide an update on
is the annual safety culture assessment
So this is the first year
of the Wildfire Safety Division Safety Culture Assessment.
The component of the Public Utilities Code Section 839
and it's specific to wildfire safety.
So this first year will be important to assess the baseline
for culture against which improvement
to be measured over time.
The findings and recommendations
from the safety culture assessments are expected to feed
into the safety certification process.
So for those electric corporations requesting
a safety certificate,
we'll be considering each electric corporation agreement
to implement the findings
from our safety culture assessments when we evaluate
its request for safety certification.
Just moving on to the next slide.
So in terms of where we are on this,
we kicked off our first safety culture assessment
earlier this month.
You can see a couple of dates there.
So for example, in November we adopted
the safety culture assessment process and resolution WSD 11.
We published the final safety culture assessment
requirements in January.
In March we executed the contract with Dekra
who are gonna be helping us to execute
our annual safety culture assessments.
We've just started the initial planning meetings
with the small and large utilities.
And towards the end of this month, we've got a meeting
with LA DWP wildfire mitigation team
to talk to them about their lessons
from the safety culture assessments
that they already admitted.
So in terms of next steps
Could you just move on to the next slide please?
Thank you.
In terms of next steps, by the end of May,
we're expecting to have completed the workforce survey,
the self-assessment and the documentation review.
By the end of June, we're expecting
to have completed interviews
and by the end of July, we're expecting to redraft it.
Finalize the safety culture assessment.
that will inform the safety certificate.
Next slide please.
And the last thing I wanted
to provide an update on is the transition
of the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety.
So the Wildfire Safety Division is transitioning
to the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety
under the California Natural Resources Agency
on July the 1st of this year.
The transition is statutorily required as per AB111, 111.
There's already been a number of initiatives
that have been progressed to ensure
that this transition is as smooth as possible.
and I've outlined a couple of these below.
So for example, we're establishing a memorandum
of understanding between the Commission and OEIF
which Is the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety
to ensure continued collaboration
and information sharing post-transition.
We're developing rules of practice and procedure
through the Office of Administrative Law.
We're migrating data between agencies (indistinct)
new internal systems and finally
we're planning for the move of offices
and equipment from the Commission's Sacramento office
to nearby CNRA offices.
If we just turn to the last slide.
So the Wildfire Safety Advisory board,
I believe is going to be meeting with our transition team
to talk about any actions that are required
in advance of this July 1st transition
And the next slide.
And that completes our presentation
Please, board members if you have any questions
please feel free to ask them.
-: Thank you very much, Ms. Morgans.
It's Morgan with an S, is that correct?
Thank you.
-: It is yeah.
-: And just for those of you who, again,
who are participating in our meeting virtually,
we will be moving into the office of emergency,
excuse me, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety
on July 1st and we will keep everyone updated
on our new email address and location and website
because all of that will be changing
along with the wildfire safety divisions transfer as well.
So, now it's an opportunity to ask questions on the part
of the board members
to the Wildfire Safety Division representative.
You can indicate if you have a question in the chat
or just raise your hand and I will call on you.
Are there any questions?
Mr. Mader.
-: Thank you, Co-chair Fellman.
I, you know, have a number of questions about, you know
we're gonna be talking about the different models
that the utilities were using
and I get the process by which you go through
and find that information
I think in your presentation is that you'll be
making information requests, for instance,
questions I had about the risk score model
that was Southern California Edison was using
like a list of all the different attributes
when they say that we have a sophisticated risk score
like, you know, is typography included
and those kinds of things.
So I guess that's the vehicle by which you'll go through
and try and flush out getting more information
on these models because you did you did accept
the recommendation
from the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
that they explained their model.
-: Well, yeah, sure.
So, yeah, it's mainly been through data requests
or follow up calls with utilities
or for example, I know that a number of utilities
went into quite high alert (indistinct)
their risk models during the workshops.
The public workshops that we held.
So yes, it's all of those things.
-: Yes. Well, how would we, follow up question,
if we didn't participate in those workshops
how are we going to find out
as a part of the Wildfire mitigation plans
that they're submitting what their risk models were?
If they explain them in a different report,
how is that information gonna be included
in their wildfire mitigation filings?
-: Yeah, no, that's a really good question.
So for that, it might be best
for the utility to answer this
but as far as I'm aware,
particularly in terms of the data request that we sent
out on this modeling, I know that they're all available
on the utilities websites and they're used to get in touch
with which if any data request responses have pertaining
to their business models.
That's certainly one way you could find out.
That's probably the primary way that I would find out
or by following up with utilities and asking them.
I can see what you're saying that if they provide
this additional information you'd want to be aware of it.
-: It sounds like something
for next year's a guideline recommendations
-: Board member, Porter.
Excuse me, you're on mute on your phone.
Could you please unmute?
Thank you.
-: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
So this has to do with the safety culture assessment
and it was earlier this year that you contracted
with Dekra to perform that safety assessment evaluation
for the IOUs, correct?
-: That's correct, yeah.
-: And so will they schedule to meet with each of the IOUs?
-: Yeah, so they just started just this week.
They started their meetings with the utilities
to give them an introduction
to the safety culture assessment
and to talk about what's gonna be required
from each utility over the coming months
in order to complete the safety culture assessment.
-: Okay. And that is something that could be provided
to us as a board also the scope
as we examine them in light of the new requirement.
-: Yeah. Certainly the scope of the safety culture assessment
that's a publicly available document.
I can dig it out and send it send it
to Catherine, if you like.
-: Yes, please.
Thank you so much.
-: And thank you for raising that a board member, Porter
because one of our statutory responsibilities
is to provide advisory guidance or recommendations
on safety culture as well for not just the investor owned
but the publicly owned utilities.
So, that's a new challenge
that we are going to have to take on in 2021.
So Ms. Morgans, we look forward to working with WFC
and how to sort that out and what's the appropriate role.
So if you could just take a note to follow up
with our advisors and, you know make suggestions
to us on how to best execute that responsibility,
we'd really appreciated it.
So thank you so much.
-: Yeah, that's cool.
-: Are there any other questions?
We really, really do appreciate.
I don't wanna keep calling you WSD
because we're looking forward now but having your briefings
at our meetings and also keeping us apprised
between meetings of where things stand
in the Wildfire Mitigation Plan review that you're doing
and your evolution of that process.
So, thank you so much for taking the time today to present
to our board.
-: Not at all, it's been a pleasure.
-: Right.
I'll now turn the meeting over
to our advisor, Ms. Leah Herald to tell us what's next.
-: All right.
Thank you, Vice Chair Fellman.
So welcome to our stretch break.
I encourage everyone to stand up to stretch,
to go get some water,
turn off your cameras and we will return at 2:10
(soft music)
(upbeat music)
-: The break will be ending shortly.
We will go ahead and join you in.
You'll hear music until we begin.
I mean, sorry.
You'll hear silence until we begin.
Is the audio working?
-: Yeah.
-: Robert, are you there yet?
-: Yep. Hey Catherine, how are you doing?
-: Good.
-: So Morgan--
-: Catherine you're live.
-: Oh, okay.
-: We are ready to begin the next part of the board meeting.
Welcome back.
We will now go into the heart of our meeting
which is going to be the discussion
of the board's draft recommendations
to the 2021 Wildfire Mitigation Plan updates
where the large investor owned utilities
How we're going to proceed is that,
I would like to actually to make some brief comments
and then Staff will read us the summary
of the recommendations followed by the board's discussion
which is going to be led by each board member focusing
and discussing the parts that he or she worked on.
And because there may be more
than one for each board member.
And if you want to follow along our draft recommendations
can be found on the board's website
which is cpc.ca.gov/wsab.
I wanted to say that by this set of recommendations
we've come full cycle from where we started.
This is our second round of recommendations of this type
and it's hard to believe that we've done so much
in the last 12 months, given the COVID challenges
and given that we were doing it all for the first time.
So my heartfelt thanks to each and every one of
the board members for your diligence, your intelligence,
your dedication to the board's work
and to making this the success that it's been.
In general for the IOU 2021 updates we want to recognize
that there have been advancements
over the last filings and we focused our recommendations
on areas that we want the WSD to consider in its review
and as Ms Morgans told us earlier
how they're going to go through the revision process.
One of the things that we really observed
is that in with these advancements
there's been a consolidation of material
and we would like to see some presentation form aspects
to the WMP that would further digest the material
for the reader so they could have a quick overview
of what the utilities have filed.
And we want to underscore, and you'll hear this
throughout the discussion on the various sections
the need for greater transparency into the utilities.
This is a decision making process.
It's not that that process.
We don't know actually whether or not that process needs
to be further investigated because we actually
need to know more about how it was done.
So we look forward
to our continuing cooperative relationship
with both the Wildfire Safety Division
as it moves into natural resources,
as well as we really do appreciate the engagement
of the investor owned utilities with us during this process.
And I want to highlight that as a preview
for what the public and other stakeholders
should be watching out for,
we are prepared to now go to the next level of analysis
using the expertise of each of our board members
which is synergistic in how we are able to review
these WMPS and come up with our recommendations
and to look for more deeper dives
such as the vegetation management workshop
which we held before the last board meeting.
So I want you to think the board members who worked on that
and we found that to be very useful, not only for ourselves
but for the overall evaluation effort.
So thank you for again, for your time.
And I have to say before I turn it over to Staff
and perhaps like a virtual round of applause
from the board members for our staff, because again
this would not be anywhere where it is
without the hard work, dedication, intelligence
and diligence of the board advisors, Catherine Stockton
and Leah Harold and Catherine has been with us
the whole time but Leah was thrown into the mix
and rose to the challenge beautifully.
So again, virtual round of applause
and great, great great appreciation for all that you do.
And for the members of the public and stakeholders,
without them, this wouldn't have happened
and you actually now have a cogent succinct document
that represents all of our thoughts.
So that is just one of the many things they do.
So I'll turn it over to staff to read the recommendations
and the board members get ready for discussion on them.
-: Thank you, Vice Chair Fellman.
Next slide please.
So under Section Two.
The risk assessment and resource allocation,
the board advises the wildfire safety division
to request more details about modeling methods, assumptions
and how the outputs of models are used in decision-making.
The board also advises the wildfire safety division
to request the creation
of a formalized scientific review process
and a common data system or platform.
Next slide.
Thank you.
In the Section Three.
The vegetation management section.
The board recommends the wildfire safety division
consider ecosystem and climate change impacts
of tree removal.
Specifically the wildfire Safety Division
should evaluate tree removal practices
and require consultation with ecologists
to reduce environmental impact.
The Safety Division should also consider
the environmental impact
of the vegetation management practices
and evaluate the hazard created
by the vegetation management practices
and include the notices of violation
in the wildfire mitigation plans.
Lastly, the wildfire Safety Division should facilitate
the creation of a database of tree species
and requesting a centralized database
to track tree species characteristics
along different environmental gradients.
Next slide please.
Thank you.
-: Under system design and hardening,
the board recommends that the Wildfire Safety Division
should recognize the efforts to pilot new technologies
that will reduce the size of arcs,
decrease the risk of ignition
and quickly recognize faults
and reduce catastrophic wildfire risk.
The board also encourages the utilities exploration
of different hardening methods and lessons learned
from utilities exposed to high winds and hurricanes.
The board recommends that the WSB
should request more information
about the IOUs' training programs and procedures
to ensure workforce safety.
The board continues to recommend
the use of qualified electrical workers for all inspections.
Next slide.
-: So, the board recommends the safety division
assess idle lines and equipment
and request more information about protocols
for de energizing idle line and equipment.
The Board recommends that the investor-owned utilities
provide more information about tracking equipment
that is exempt from General Order 95.
And that's generally equipment that was
in place before the general order
was created in 1942, I believe.
Finally, the board recommends
the wildfire Safety Division consider
and evaluate PGAs grid hardening metrics
and how this year there's reduced progress
in hardening its lines compared to the other large IOUs.
Next slide, please.
-: The power safety power shutoffs,
the board recommends whilst our safety division,
the wildfire Safety Division should recognize
the IOUs are making progress
and using modeling to prioritize grid hardening measures
that will eventually reduce the size
and scope of PSPS events.
And this is similar to the boards system hardening
for electrical utility resiliency, privatization threshold.
The board also recommends that the WSC
should request the IOUs to describe how they utilize
the data collected during and after a PSPS event
to evaluate the effectiveness of their mitigation efforts.
And finally, the board recommends that the WSB
should request the IOUs conduct studies
to evaluate the effectiveness of their mitigation efforts.
Next slide.
-: Okay. The last section.
Emergency planning and communication.
The board recommends the wildfire Safety Division
consider the expanded outreach in 2020 compared to 2019.
The IOUs have improved reporting on community outreach
efforts in the 2020 WMPs compared to the 2019 WMPS.
The board recommends the wildfire Safety Division
consider the awareness of utility efforts
to quantify these efforts.
The utilities have made strides to improve both the quality
and quantity of outreach efforts to local, state, federal
and tribal governments, as well as the access
and functional needs community,
other at-risk populations and customers in general.
Finally, the board recommends
the wildfire safety Division request more information
on the metrics used to evaluate the sufficiency
of the outreach efforts to customers and stakeholders.
And with that, I pass it off back to Vice Chair Fellman.
-: Thank you very much, Ms. Catherine and Ms. Harold.
Now we are going to turn to the discussion--
-: One moment.
-: Recommendations by the board members.
Before we go to that I'm going to ask
if anyone had any general comments,
so I'll call in Mr. Mader.
-: Thank you Co Chair Fellman.
I wanted to note that we have one...
We amended our recommendation.
We have one comment which was to add to
the PSPS recommendations.
Recommendation number two
The WSC should request the IOUs conduct independent short
and long-term studies that evaluate and mitigation practices
including enhanced vegetation management grid, hardening
et cetera, to assess their effective in mitigating wildfires
and in mending (indistinct)
and reducing PSPS events, period.
-: All right.
Thank you.
I was actually going to wait till we got to that section
but since you raised it now, that's okay.
Since you raised it now,
I just want to hear specifically on that addition
if there are any objections from the board.
We don't have to vote on it now,
we can vote on it when we do the roll call
on the recommendations
but are there any objections from any board members
to the addition of this language proposed
by board member Mader?
Seeing none, let's proceed.
And since I, since we are under Bagley-Keene requirements,
we'll move to the discussion.
And I am not aware of what or whom worked on each section
because we divided into the Bagley-Keene
I'm aware of the members who worked, you know
with whom I worked in Bagley Keene committees.
And Bagley Keene for those of you who may not know
is the name of the two legislators who passed
the legislation on open meeting requirements
in the state of California for public agencies
at the state level.
So as we turn to Section Two.
If you could just raise your hands
on who worked on Section Two I'll just call on you.
So we have board members Syphard and board member Mader
and then board member Blocks.
So who would like to...
Let's just go in alphabetical order.
So why don't we go start with board member Block
and then you can hand it off to your colleague.
Oh, and the other thing I want to mention is
let's do a round of comments by each board member
who worked on a sub topic and then when you're finished
with that we'll open it up to general questions
from the board.
Because again under the Bagley-Keene
open meeting requirements we have not discussed
these recommendations as a board in private
and we are required to do it in this public meeting
before we vote.
So thank you very much.
Board member, Block.
-: Okay. So, should I do some generalized comments
about just Section Two or in general?
-: Let's do this.
You can do...
The first time you speak since we jumped in,
why don't you go ahead and do general comments.
If anyone else have just general comments
before we drill into the section?
So mine are basically kind of both, right?
They're sort of general, but they--
-: Why don't we dive into the section
and you can start with whatever you wanna say.
-: Okay, great.
So, you know, in general I was pleased
to see greater reporting on the risk assessment section
by the IOUs and I just recognized
I want to state the recognition that this is the first time
that I know of that a regulatory agency
is required to understand and evaluate emerging science
and data science methods.
So there's, you know extensive machine learning happening
that each of the IOUs are employing
for the first time in the last few years,
as well as emerging wildfire science.
And not only is that difficult for the regulators
to understand in order to regulate
but those are also very, very quickly moving targets.
So we're in a process.
The board is in a process of trying to understand
how we can request the evaluation of these methods
so that we can provide our expertise.
And, you know, I think that's part of what the board
is here to do is to offer our expertise
in these methods and to also help
the safety division learn how to receive that information
and be able to vet it properly.
That is partly why we hosted
the vegetation management workshop that we did
in part to this reveal what emerging research
is out there and how that might be useful in the process
for both evaluation and for management analysis.
I'll leave it there in terms of the risk assessment section.
Those are my comments for now.
Thank you.
-: So I'll be the moderator then board member, Mader
and then board member, Syphard.
-: So I really wanted to point out that you know,
the strong need for more transparency upon the risk bottles
that the utilities are reporting in their WMPSs
which I also wanna say,
obviously have become more sophisticated,
becoming more discreet
but we still don't have the details of exactly
what they are.
Without that we can't evaluate,
we can't determine best practices.
We can't determine, you know, how to make things better.
As an engineer, trying to think
of how to solve these problems,
wildfire mitigation and PSPS reduction,
which I wanna say that for the first time,
the WMPs are starting to talk about both those goals
together as part of their risk analysis
which I think is a commendable step forward.
If I need tools like I need a probability of ignition
at a particular line segment,
I need consequence mapping.
I need weather mapping modeling
and without those tools,
I can't determine what's the right mitigation
to get where we're trying to go,
which is to reduce wildfire ignitions
and also to potentially reduce PSPS events.
And those tools are becoming more sophisticated
but they're not the details of what they are
and the competence level and which the utilities have
in these tools are not clear.
So, generally, like we need more detail
a lot more detail about what tools they're using
-: Board member, Syphard.
Yeah. I'm not sure if this is the time for this
but I have I have just a few thoughts
that provide a little bit of explanation
on the recommendation.
So, you know, specifically in terms of we keep saying,
well, we need more information, we need more transparency.
What does that actually mean?
And just a couple of examples of the kind of information
that is helpful are.
For example, you know, when the utilities described
that they're now using machine learning
that doesn't tell me a lot
because there are many different types
of machine learning algorithms and all of them
have different assumptions.
And each different model type has inherited assumptions.
So for example, a statistical correlational model
typically has the assumption that it assumes equilibrium
with the environment.
What is the accuracy of the model?
So if you're using statistics, what is the AUC?
And importantly, what are the sources of uncertainty?
All models have uncertainty, all models are wrong
but some are useful as you know, as is often said.
And so what's important is to have an explanation
and justification for here's why we chose this method.
Here's what its limitations are.
Here are strengths.
And this is what it can tell us.
Here are the outputs and then an interpretation
of what those outputs are.
So, you know, to list the strengths and weaknesses
of any given approach allows for full disclosure
and it allows the process to be more transparent
and it also allows improvement based on other's input.
The other thing I wanted to mention
in terms of the independent scientific review
is that being a scientist and having spent my entire life
not being able to do anything without peer review.
First of all, I think it's important
because to have an unbiased review.
So something that you know, it's given out to somebody
who is qualified but has no conflict of interest.
The reviewer could even be anonymous
unless they wish to state who they are.
And the feedback is honest.
So if there's no conflict of interest,
it's gonna be honest and it's gonna be the most helpful.
And it could be something
where it doesn't have to be that onerous
and that you could divide it up
into different areas of expertise
so you get a range of different experts who have
different types of expertise.
For example, an ecologist and a meteorologist study wildfire
from very different perspectives
and have very different understanding
and contributions to make.
And then finally, I think it would be helpful
to somehow just develop a living document that describes
in detail, all the models and assumptions
and this document can be reviewed and updated
and it would take time to do the peer review.
It would take time to develop the document
but once established the document could be pending
and it only ever needs to be updated
instead of completely recreating every single time
a review comes along.
So there are my thoughts on specifics for this section.
-: Thank you so much.
Are there any questions for these board members?
Mr. Mader.
-: I wanted to, while we're talking about risk assessment
and resource allocation,
you need risk assessments in order to do
your risk efficiency calculations
in order to find out where you wanna allocate your resources
to solve the problems that you're trying to solve for
which is in this case we're talking about
mitigating wildfires and also now which is great this year,
we're talking about reducing PSPS events.
And I really wanted to highlight San Diego Gas and Electric
that this year, and let's acknowledge that they've been
at this longer than the other IOUs.
So their program had longer to be implemented.
They've had longer to allocate their resources
but this year they're going to have
a (indistinct) transmission line
into every substation in the high fire threat distance areas
in their territory.
Which means that they are thinking
about I can't solve the problem all at once
but what I can do is I can start allocating it
to every single one of these substations
so that potentially now we can start excluding populations
from PSPS events that they otherwise
would have been been experiencing,
that the powers were distributed,
certain emergency services are more robust
because of different vital infrastructure
resulting in power.
And that is that's an example of a long-term planning
in order to gain benefits from like system hardening.
But where that comes from is from your risk assessment
and your resource allocation.
-: Any other comments or questions on section two?
All right.
Let's move on to Section Three, vegetation management.
Could the board members who worked on the section
please raise your hands.
All right.
Why don't we again, go in alphabetical order?
Board member Armstrong, could you please lead off.
-: Okay thanks, Vice Chair Fellman.
You know, I've actually been involved in
a couple of different team groups
so there's a kind of a cross-section between some of these.
But some of the ones I wanna just point out is,
as we we're reading the mitigation plans
and have the workshops and things like that,
we've found that there's a possibility
that some of the IOUs were issued citations
from other state agencies that we didn't have privy to.
So, you know, there's a recommendation
to actually have those citations available
when we review the documents
just to get a basic transparent view of what was, you know
what they may have been possible doing in the past.
And then the other one I just wanna touch base on
was just a standardized training program
for the men and women are out there
actually performing the work
of vegetation management I believe is right.
But the tracking and documentation of that, I believe,
there needs to be more to that.
So those were the two things that I ended up figuring out
as some of the things as we move down here
that'll (indistinct)
That's it.
-: All right.
Thank you, board member, Block.
-: Hi, this what I have to say about this section
and in a broader sense.
Dovetails from our public commenters
at the beginning of our sessions.
What we've heard from many of them
in different ways is that vegetation clearance
is not the only metric that we need to be using
to judge our vegetation management practices
and really there's a cut...
Then when you go past clearance,
the decision making process
becomes much much more complicated
because it's really ecologically based
and dependent on not only what the environment
is but the nature of wildfire passing through that area.
And so, you know, we recommend that those decisions
be made differently and embark on structuring a way
that that can be done in a more sustainable fashion.
And that's the end of my comments.
-: Board member, Syphad.
-: Yeah. just a couple of comments
on a reminder of the potential reasons
why healthy green trees may be important.
One is that they provide ecosystem services.
So they reduce erosion,
they store carbon,
they provide habitat for wildlife and other animals.
And the other thing is that contrary
to what many believe having vegetation that's green
and on the ground can actually provide benefits
in terms of wildfire.
And these, like Jessica was just saying,
a lot of these were mentioned in the public comments
is that you know, trees can serve to reduce wind speed.
They also can catch embers and extinguish them.
So, you know, in these really fast, strong
wind born, wind-driven wildfires
fire spread is usually facilitated by when lone embers
and if they land on something green,
they're more likely to go out
as opposed to landing on flashy fuels
which are more likely to keep it igniting
and that brings me back
to the point about being careful that you know
that there's no unintended consequence
of reducing woody vegetation
particularly if it's low growing
and it's underneath the line
and, you know inviting flashy fuels
and invasive grasses to come in
which could actually, you know
increase fire risks because they're much more ignitable.
So that's just a little bit of explanation
about where those recommendations are coming from.
-: Thank you.
Are there any questions from other board members
or even the ones who worked on this or your colleagues.
Seeing none, we'll now move to Section Four
which is system design and grid hardening.
Will the members who worked on that?
All right, let's start with Mr. Armstrong
then turn it over to the board member, Mader
and then finally board Porter.
So take it away Mr. Armstrong.
-: Thanks again, Co-chair.
So a couple of things under the grid hardening
that I thought was important.
And first of all, I'd like to basically talk about
the emerging technologies and some of the devices
that IOUs are looking at.
I think that if they can...
If those things prove to be effective.
I mean, it could be a game changer for a lot of this.
So I just wanted to point that out.
It could be a game-changer for the utility
on equipment for preventing that from starting wildfires.
One of the other things I noticed
in one or two of the Wildfire mitigation plans,
was the benchmarking of a place of ideal with wildfires.
And I was coming from the East coast
and seeing how the areas in the country that are faced
with high wind and storms all the time on a regular basis,
and they're hardening efforts that they've done to deal
with hurricanes.
The recommendation would be maybe looking
at some benchmarking of some of those utilities
that deal with it on a regular basis.
I mean, I can tell you that the restoration times
in those areas that face catastrophic hurricanes
are a lot quicker.
The only difference between a lot of the wind-driven event,
that's the most common denominator here, is the wind,
the difference being in a hurricane
it's a wet event with no fire risk
but they do harden the system.
Simple things like storm guards that might stabilize
the system a little better in areas where they know
the high wind is gonna run through a Valley or something
like that to help stabilize the existing equipment.
Maybe it could that wind threshold a little higher.
The other thing that, you know thinking of the Kincade fire
and idle lines, you know as you start thinking through it
there's a lot of equipment out there from stakes
in transmission and distribution to secondary services,
to agricultural equipment that could be
on the border of the high fire threat districts
and evaluating that equipment and seeing
if it needs to be energized like what we're all doing here
is evaluating the risks.
And if it's not actually feeding something
why are we keeping it energized?
So those are some of the big topics that I have on this.
-: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.
Board member, Mader I think your phone is muted.
-: I'm sorry.
I was trying to say I'm (indistinct)
board member, Porter first.
-: Alright, thank you.
So when I examined these, what stood out to me
trying to understand all three permissions,
you're talking about the, the training program.
However, not enough detail was there for us
to really examine, you know, the efficacy
as we go through each plan in each update
to whether it's specific enough
to wildfire mitigation.
Being a layman myself, going out, replacing a pot
on the street is different than going in the woods,
putting up a cover conductor,
assessing whether or not we can put in isolators in a place
where we can start to sectionalize
what type of equipment is there.
And so a little bit more detailed would probably
help us understand exactly what additional training
is being introduced or proposed
and how it actually helped in the mitigation efforts.
Again, also we recommended, or I did,
insisting that we continue
with the qualified electrical worker
doing the assessments in the inspections
in the high fire areas.
That there's one IOU who is utilizing
it's current electrical system inspector
which their wheelhouse really is
in compliance with General Order 95.
(indistinct) high signs construction for the public.
It was important in the beginning with the inception
of us all recognizing that this was important for us to put
in a concerted effort.
All the IOUs, the PUC and the state legislature mandated
the WMPs and they instituted or tasked us to examine
and give recommendations to the safety division
In the inception it was qualified electrical workers only.
And if we reduce that requirement
then I see that as being problematic.
One of the IOUs wrote a comment back to us giving us
the details of how they utilize their electrical inspectors.
They sent it through QC process
and then to a few QEW to sign off.
I find that a poor use of repairs dollars
to do the thing that the QEW can do in the beginning.
And those are my comments.
-: My comment, I wanted to point out that, you know
we hear system hardening, system design and grid hardening
and we think that that is the solution
to these outages that we're experiencing in PSPS events.
That doesn't necessarily actually happen.
Their PSPS events happen when the system is designed
to be too risky.
At this point in time, there's been very little effort
to deem what is an acceptable risk to operate
during high wind events as a result of grid hardening.
There are some comments that were made in the WMP
but explicitly tying the avoidance
of a PSPS to grid hardening.
Usually the utility talk about undergrounding
the facilities and we are actually starting
to see some advancement in this area
but really what we need to realize
if we're trying to get to that goal of avoiding the PSPS
because we've hardened the system enough
but we raised the risk.
That we need to pay.
We need to pay attention to the risk assessment portion
of these WMP and that's why we need that transparency
in their model in order to evaluate
whether or not they're sufficient
for us to be able to see an IOU operating
at a much higher wind speed and avoiding PSPS event.
The other thing I wanted to point out is that, you know
the most tragic fire was the result
of equipment failure on assets that predated GO 95.
Most of our inspections are in relationship to GO 95
and this is equipment that's commonly referred
to as being exempt.
I think the WSD should be looking to collect information
on where these assets are and specifically
been dating that more risk analysis to be done
because each individual they're each distinct
and they have potential for the black Swan events
because they weren't anticipated that they would not.
When they've only been inspected to GO 95
and the original construction
may not meet the GO 9% standard.
So for that reason, I recommend that the WSD
collect this information and require it from IOUs.
-: Thank you very much, such an important area.
Are there any questions from the board members
to this Bagley-Keene group?
Mr. Armstrong...
I always say Mr. but it is board member Armstrong.
Apologies for that.
-: I just want to add one more thing to this too.
As we move into the, or we are doing great hardening
and even some new technologies, I just encourage
that the utilities look at all aspects of that
from a safety of the workers.
Like you can just give the example of the doctor I know.
It's very popular for everybody
and it's you know, probably a lot easier to work on if you
if you (indistinct).
But the majority of the work where
this covered conductor is going
is sometimes inaccessible areas
and it makes for some difficult task
to meet the OSHA requirements for grounding
where you can't you know, the line (indistinct) or guys
you have to have ground before you can work on it
which there's tools to do that for,
but to restore the line to its original condition
once you remove the installation becomes very problematic.
And I'm not sure if there's a real good solution
for that right now, other than, you know
basically hang a board out there and try to repair it
or, you know, just encouraging all
of us to, as we explore new technologies,
that they're look at all aspects of it.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Any questions from other board members?
All right.
Let's move then on to Section Five,
the public safety power shutoff.
Which board members worked on this section?
Mr. Mader and board member Armstrong.
Why don't we start with board member Armstrong?
-: Thanks for your involvement.
The main thing with me is on this particular one is,
as we start using enhanced vegetation management
and system hardening,
and we're still experiencing PSPS events
in some of those areas,
each utility does a post PSPS event log
but it doesn't really break down
and whether or not system
has any enhanced vegetation management onto to it.
If it had any cover conductor installed
or whether nothing was done with it.
I mean, the assumption is that nothing was done
to those areas.
It would be the recommendation
is to do a basically a deep dive into the areas where
the PSPS events were calculating wind speed,
Seeing what type of damage was done
to the facility that, you know,
whether it was just an aspect case management
for recovered conductor just to measure
the effectiveness of the mitigation.
So that was the recommendation.
Thank you.
Board member, Mader
-: Thank you.
So in absence of other mitigation, you know
the blunt mitigation for preventing catastrophic wildfires
has been public safety, power shut down.
You know, that itself is an undesirable state.
Nobody wants to see the power shut down
to the people of California.
And it is good to see in these WMP that the consequences
of the public PSPS events are starting to be factored
into the risk calculations.
But we're really not going to be able to reduce
those PSPS events and I've kind of said it
in every single one of my presentations
through these parts of the recommendation
is until we're able to assess the risks
of different types of construction
and different types of tophotography
and how to re change those States and the consequences,
then we'll be able to start looking
at reducing PSPS events from the results of mitigation.
I wanna call out Southern California Edison
they did actually state that they're starting to study this,
they're starting to build those risk profiles
and I really do believe that that's the way forward.
And I think you're gonna be hearing
from the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
on our recommendations for 2022 WMP guidelines
on how to make those improvements going forward.
-: Yeah that's our next task.
Well, first we're going to do the small
jurisdictional investor owned utilities.
Then we'll be looking at 2022.
Any questions from other board members
to this Bagley-Keene group?
-: I think I have a question that is part PSPS part
in the last section on the system hardening.
Okay. So John, you had spoken back during
the grid hardening about the GO 95 exemptions.
Can you explain a little bit more
about how that's possible and how we can address that?
And cause it seems that that would have a strong influence
on activating PSPSes if the equipment
is not up to GO 95 standards, right?
-: If something isn't up to GO 95 standards currently,
it still gets inspected every year
but the inspectors are trained to look
at equipment from a GO 95 perspective
and if it was previous to GO 95,
it may be exempted from having to meet those standards.
And what I'm calling out is that that risk
should be evaluated on a case by case basis by the IOU
or that the WSD should be driving that kind of behavior.
So that yes, in the case that it may be
especially prone to be subject to PSPS events
because unless the risk is completely understood.
-: And the exemption a matter of cost?
You know, when I think about, say for instance,
regulations on homes, they're exempt
because they're older, you know, just in general.
And so is that why they're exempt?
Just because it's older construction?
-: Generally that is the case yes..
-: Okay. That's helpful.
Thanks.
-: Any other questions?
All right.
Let's move to Section Six.
Emergency planning and communication.
I worked on this section.
Were there others who worked on this section?
All right.
Why don't we start with you board member Porter.
-: Okay. And I really don't wanna step on you.
I did enjoy the description of how each one
of the IOU's, a bit larger IOUs have engaged more fully.
Again, there are some that are still reactionary
instead of proactive in their engagement.
And it's usually after a PSPS event
and instead of going forward and asking really
where should we be going
and then creating proposals or programs or mitigation
that way it's usually afterwards.
And usually there are plans already
in the works and it's one of those,
okay we're gonna put you on the list.
What we do next?
I found that the two bookend San Diego Gas and Electric
and PG and E their battery backup outreach program
is stellar and I believe that Southern California Edison
is in process of developing
a more robust backup power program
or at least reaching more individuals who could utilize it
and maybe it's changing their marketing strategy.
It would be nice in my estimation to truly understand
what is the lens they're using in their approach
to offer those you know, mitigating tools to the public.
That was it.
-: Thank you.
Yes, we did.
In our Begley-Keene group, we did discuss
and we want to acknowledge that from the 2019 effort
to the 20 well, last year was looking back to 2020.
So we really saw mass massive improvement and thoughtfulness
in selecting which measures would be used
and for example, Edison determined that they needed to drill
into a regional and local level rather than try to do
through a service territory wide blast
because that was more effective.
And to add one thought to what board member Porter described
we would like to see the process,
the utility used in choosing what measures to employ
because it is there is quantification of how many kits
they made with social media or over, you know
creating text communities,
working with the state, local federal governments
the tribal government reaching out to the AFM.
We have those, all those contexts quantified
and we wanna make sure that the programs
that the utilities have chosen to employ
are the most efficacious and cost-effective programs.
So we'd like, we know, we assume
that decisions are being made by the utilities
to choose approach A rather than approach B.
And we see this as not necessarily a case of well more
is more that we want to have a lens into what metrics
were used in making the decisions
on how the communities were engaged.
And also, you know how the emergency preparedness efforts
such as backup power that board member Porter raised
are being deployed.
So that's the end of Section Six.
Any questions for us on section six?
And I think just to wrap it up
that this goes to our general theme of transparency
and sort of looking behind the veil of what we assume.
And I think I can go so far to say as I know
that the utilities are being very diligent and thoughtful
in making the decisions but the WMPs are structured
so we only see the results of those decisions
rather than that process.
So thank you for that.
That was a really, and again,
if I may take a chair prerogative
I just wanna say, you know, we, again, for the public
we never meet in private to discuss these, you know
we drop into different conversations throughout the process
and I am just literally blown away by the expertise
and how...
If the Governor's office
and the legislature is watching.
Thank you very much to the appointing authorities
for bringing us this group of people
because it's not only are they experts
and they're also pragmatic and a very good group of people
to work with.
So again, I wanna express my appreciation
to each and every one of you.
All right.
Are there any final words on the draft recommendations?
I think that what we should do, board member Mader,
is repeat for those who may have forgotten
the changes you wanna make before we move to a vote.
So could you please repeat the change that you wanna make
in a recommendation?
I believe it's five.
-: Yes. In recommendation five or Section Five
recommendation two, the first sentence
which is to go after the last word wildfires
add the comma space and reduce in reducing PSPS a bit
Period.
-: All right.
And we had no questions on that language.
So I'm going to turn this
over to advisors to proceed with the vote.
I think first we need...
I'll entertain a motion from a board member
to adopt the recommendations
as amended by board member, Mader.
-: I'll make the recommendation to adopt.
Adopt the change and the recommendations.
Is there a second board member, Porter?
All right, I'll turn it over.
For roll call vote.
-: Vice Chair Fellman?
-: Aye.
-: Board member, Porter?
-: Aye.
-: Board member Syphad?
-: Aye.
-: Board member, Mader?
-: Aye.
-: Board member, Armstrong?
-: Aye.
-: And board member, Block?
-: Aye.
-: The motion passes with a unanimous consent.
-: And Leah thank you very much.
And let's see.
Let the minutes reflect
that Chair Edwards was necessarily absent today
and did not vote on these recommendations.
So we're ready to conclude our meeting.
Thank you everyone for participating
in this virtual meeting.
Our intention is that we are going to continue
with virtual meetings for the rest of 2021.
I believe our next meeting,
and I'll look for a nod from Steph.
Our next public meeting is going to be,
is it May 12th?
May 12th.
So we will then be looking at our recommendations
on the small unit, a small whatever they are
the small investor owned utilities by SMJU.
So we hope that you can join us again
at that point in time.
I wanna give thanks to Robert Stafford
and Joe Hagia of our IT and our team of IT professionals
because it seems that every time we do
have a virtual meeting
there's some new twist and turn that we have a tech test
and we're, you know, just trying to figure it out.
I wanna thank our legal who's signing off now.
Our legal support, which we have Jason Rieger
and Galen who have been helping us, making sure
that we follow all the appropriate legal requirements.
I need to ask if there's any final thoughts from the board
anyone would like to share?
Hearing none.
Staff are there any announcements
that you would like to make?
-: I could make the announcement about masks and vaccines.
Per you know, directions from the Governor
and the Department of Health, please stay safe.
Your efforts will help all Californians.
Please wear masks.
Even if you've already been vaccinated, avoid gatherings
with people living outside of your household,
maintain six feet of distance between yourself and others.
Follow the public health guidance regarding closures.
Please get vaccinated.
Everyone 16 and over will be eligible
for a vaccine starting April 15th tomorrow.
Please visit www.myturn.ca.gov for more information.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
My close will be again, a great appreciation
to our advisers for keeping us on track
and doing all they do.
So you should take a well deserved virtual applause
and you know, both of you should have
a well-deserved evening off.
However you choose to celebrate the success of this meeting.
All right?
Any other final comments from the board?
Mr. Mader.
Board member, Mader.
-: I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge
the concerns raised by the public speakers.
We take your comments very seriously.
We're doing our best to try to advise
the Wildfire Safety Division
to drive the IOU, to provide the benefits
that you're looking for.
So I just wanted to take a moment
to acknowledge our public speakers.
-: Thank you.
Any other comments?
I saw a lot of affirming nods from the rest
of your colleague, board member, including myself.
If we could put up the adjournment slide
which has the contact information.
So those of you who did not complete,
do not feel completing your public comments
or anyone else who would like to file comments.
I do wanna recognize our public commenters
from the all the IOUs and the others that we received.
We read them and processed them.
And you can see in the red lines
the changes that were made.
If you have any questions
since we do not have any ex parte limitations,
please feel free to reach out through our advisers.
And we would be happy to meet with you.
May I have a motion for adjournment
and from somebody other than that side of the screen.
So one of the women, one of the women.
Jessica.
Jessica: A motion to adjourn the meeting.
Diane: And I second.
All right.
Thank you.
We have diversity on our board.
We have a second.
I think we have to take a roll call Ms Catherine
and every vote.
So could you please take the roll?
Catherine: Sure.
Board member, Porter.
Porter: Yeah.
Catherine: Board member, Syphard.
Syphard: Yes.
Catherine: Board member Mader.
Mader: Aye.
Catherine: Board member, Armstrong.
Armstrong: Aye.
Catherine: Board member, Block.
Jessica: Aye.
Catherine: And vice chair Fellman.
Diane: Aye
So that concludes the April 14th meeting
of the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board.
Thank you very much and stay safe and healthy.