Date of Hearing: April 3, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 868 (

Author:Bigelow) – As Amended Ver:March 25, 2019

SUBJECT: Electrical corporations, electrical cooperatives, local publicly owned electric utilities: wildfire mitigation plans

SUMMARY: Expands the fire safety and prevention requirements for electric corporations (IOUs), local publicly owned utilities (POUs), and electrical cooperatives (co-ops) to include specified protocols for deenergizing electric distribution and transmission lines, restoration of service, and for notifying affected customers. Specifically, this bill:

Requires IOUs, POUs, and co-ops (collectively referred to as electric utilities) that deenergize transmission or distribution lines as a wildfire mitigation measure, to adopt protocols for:
1. What, when and where deenergization of distribution and transmission lines will be undertaken which must include specified operating condition classifications;
2. Notice to specified customers before, during, and after a deenergization event including advance consultation to specified groups and individuals likely to be affected;
3. Minimizing any adverse effects of deenergization with specified methods and timing of notices to specified customers; and
4. Restoring electrical service following a deenergization which must include how determinations will be made for when operating conditions that triggered the deenergization even have improved and inspection requirements for all lines that have been deenergized.
Requires IOUs and co-ops to file a report with the CPUC within ten business days after each deenergization event including specified information regarding whether the deenergization occurred in a High Fire Threat District, a list of customers notified with the time, date and means of notification, any known failures of customer notification, and complaints received.
Requires electric utilities to maintain Internet websites with specified information which is updated to provide notice of any potential or anticipated deenergization events including the areas that may be affected and the status of service restoration,
Defines protocol, deenergizing, electric utility, life-support equipment, operating condition classification, normal, extreme, critical, and water suppliers for purposes of developing protocols.

EXISTING LAW:

Requires IOUs to file wildfire mitigation plans which include:
1. Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electrical distribution system that consider the associated impacts on public safety, as well as protocols related to mitigating the public safety impacts of those protocols, including impacts on critical first responders and on health and communication infrastructure; and
2. Appropriate and feasible methods for notifying a customer that may be impacted by the deenergizing of electrical lines including consideration of the need to notify, as a priority, critical first responders, heath care facilities, water agencies, wastewater utilities, and operators of telecommunications infrastructure. (Public Utilities Code § 8386)
Requires POUs and co-ops to prepare a wildfire mitigation plan before January 1, 2020 and consider, as part of the plan:
Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electrical distribution system that consider the associated impacts on public safety, as well as protocols related to mitigating the public safety impacts of those protocols, including impacts on critical first responders and on health and communication infrastructure; and
Appropriate and feasible methods for notifying a customer that may be impacted by the deenergizing of electrical lines including consideration of the need to notify, as a priority, critical first responders, heath care facilities, water agencies, wastewater utilities, and operators of telecommunications infrastructure. (Public Utilities Code § 8387)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

BACKGROUND:

What is Deenergizing? An intentional action of an electric utility to implement an "unplanned outage" by turning off power to distribution lines in a proactive effort to prevent fires, typically during high wind events, which could blow down distribution lines or cause vegetation to come into contact with those lines.

What are Reclosers? Automated reclosers work much like enhanced circuit breakers. When an abnormal electrical current is detected on a power line, the line automatically shuts down. The recloser waits several seconds, then sends a burst of electricity through the line to see if conditions have returned to normal. If so, the recloser automatically restarts the flow of power. Reclosers are considered a key tool to prevent or minimize blackouts, particularly in rural areas. By restarting service on a line automatically, the recloser eliminates the need to send utility crews to fix many minor service disruptions.

However, if a power line is damaged, touching vegetation, or dangling toward the ground, an automatic recloser can pose a fire risk. The burst of current sent by the recloser to test a line can ignite dry plants. Disabling reclosers is an action separate from deenergizing and considered to be an alternative to shutting off power.

Deenergizing Policies & Protocols – California is experiencing an increase in wildfire events due to a number of factors, including an extended period of drought, upwards of ten years, increased fuel for fires, and unprecedented conditions that are leading to extreme weather events. Exacerbating wildfire conditions are energized power lines and the potential of these lines to either spark or worsen an existing wildfire. To mitigate these and other risks, the CPUC has authorized the IOUs to use the option of proactively shutting down power to specific power lines to limit the impact or damage of these lines to communities in situations where the utilities are aware of dangerous conditions. Deenergization of distribution lines under certain circumstances is now expected of all electric utilities in the state.

CPUC Action on Deenergizing – The CPUC considered and allowed San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to engage in proactive deenergization in a 2012 decision^{^[1]} which allowed the utility to shut off power as a fire prevention measure against severe Santa Ana winds. In July of 2018, the CPUC extended the deenergization notice, reporting and reasonableness review requirements to all electric IOUs and adopted additional measures to supplement the requirements approved in the 2012 decision.^{^[2]} The new measures included more detailed reporting and additional public outreach, notification and mitigation.

The IOUs have now called numerous deenergization events and the CPUC has received a large volume of input from the public, government agencies and other first responders concerned about the practice. Consequently the CPUC opened a proceeding in December 2018 to examine how the process is working, and to determine whether additional refinement is appropriate.^{^[3]} They also intend to enhance stakeholder involvement in examining deenergization requirements and will be holding at least two agency workshops. Additional outreach around the state will allow input from local communities, first responders and others with concerns about wildfires and deenergization.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement. According to the author, “this measure simply implements smart public safety power shutoff protocols (PSPS) that have proven effective in previous public safety power shutoffs. It is important that my constituents and local governments, municipalities and public safety entities have consistent and reliable communication during a PSPS”. Additionally he reported that “last October, much of El Dorado and Amador Counties endured a PSPS for several days. Utilities voluntarily shut down the power grid as a precaution to preventing a wildfire due to high wind warnings in the region. Unfortunately, there was a lack of communication with municipalities, local governments, public safety agencies, and customers.”
Impacts of Deenergizing. The author of this bill represents communities which have experienced deenergizing events for several days at a time. He finds that those “affected were not able to properly plan, and were left in the dark (both figuratively and literally) during this voluntary shut-off for many days. Some of our constituents are on wells, and were unable to lift their water. In addition, much of El Dorado County’s waste-water lift stations rely on electricity. Increased communication and timely notification before and during a PSPS allows local governments, customers, and vulnerable communities to plan.”

In fact, the intentional deenergization of distribution lines by a utility, leaving customers without power for extended periods, is antithetical to the core mission of utilities. The use of this tool can have adverse impacts on public safety and customers. The events have caught customers off-guard but are necessary in this era of increased threats from wildfires.

Transmission. This bill adds transmission lines to mandated deenergization protocols which are currently limited to distribution lines. Although some utilities may have included transmission lines in deenergization protocols to some degree, the CPUC has not ordered that transmission lines be included at this time. They are however considering inclusion of transmission in an open rulemaking in which parties are asked to comment on what additional provisions or protocols are needed if de-energization of transmission lines becomes necessary.

The state’s transmission system is interconnected across the western states. Approximately 80% of the system is managed by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). Firm deenergizing policies for transmission will require coordination with the CAISO and likely CalOES' State Operations Center. Until the CPUC’s work has concluded, the committee should consider amending the bill to limit the protocols to distribution lines by making the following changes:
1. Page 11, line 4, strike “transmission or”’
2. Page 11 line 12, strike “the electrical grid” and insert “distribution lines”;
3. Page 11, line 38, strike “electrical grid” and insert “distribution lines”;
4. Page 12, line 13, strike “transmission and”; and
5. Page 14, lines 12-13, strike “electrical grid” and insert “distribution lines”.
Impacts on POUs and Co-ops. Under current law, IOUs are mandated to include deenergization protocols in wildfire mitigation plans. However, POUs and co-ops, which are governed by locally elected boards, are under a separate section of law and are only required to consider deenergization protocols for utility wildfire mitigation plans. To ensure the policy distinction from IOUs remains, the committee may wish to consider striking POUs and co-ops from Section 4 of the bill by striking “electric utility” or “utility” in this section and inserting “electrical corporation” and additionally striking “and electrical cooperative” at page 13, line 17.
Impacts on IOUs. Current law broadly requires the IOUs to include deenergization protocols consistent with CPUC orders as part of wildfire mitigation plans approved by the CPUC. Section 4 of this bill, with the exception of the new inclusion of transmission lines, largely reflects deenergization protocols ordered by the CPUC and/or included in some IOU plans, particularly SDG&E. Replication of these detailed and complex standards in statute is not recommended. The “operating condition classifications” defined in this bill are very technical (see, for example, page 11, lines 10-34). Engineering and science standards should not be included in statute because it eliminates the flexibility of the regulating agency and the IOUs to modify the standards as circumstances dictate. If these policies are codified it would unnecessarily pre-empt review and consideration in the CPUC’s currently-active deenergization proceeding. The bill could hamper new strategies to address the very concerns that led to this bill.

Additionally, procedurally, statutory enactment of duplicative and new elements for deenergization protocols through this bill will require the CPUC to revisit and modify the rulemaking underway. This is required under current law as part of its lengthy, quasi-judicial process which involves the time of staff and administrative law judges and extensive public notice and comment. Improvements to deenergization protocols would therefore be unintentionally delayed and could be constrained by this bill.

Consequently, the committee may wish to consider amending the bill as follows:
1. Page 11, lines 10-34
2. Page 12, lines 1-2, “and protocols for restoring electrical service following a deenergization”;
3. Page 12, lines 10-14; and
4. Page 13, lines 6-16.
Notice, Outreach & Oversight. The author’s expressed primary concern is that his constituents know what’s coming, when it’s coming, and how they can prepare for the electric outages associated with deenergization in advance. He is also concerned that the circumstances and impacts of deenergization events are publicly reported and analyzed by the CPUC. These provisions would remain in the bill even if the committee makes the amendments suggested in comments #3, 4, and 5. Although these provisions are in existing CPUC orders and IOU policies, the notice and outreach requirements are likely the floor and it is probable that the CPUC will enhance these requirements leaving the statute as a floor.
Related Legislation.

SB 167 (Dodd) Requires deenergizing protocols to additionally include impacts on customers enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy program, receiving medical baseline allowances of electricity or gas, and whom the IOU has identified as critical care customers relying on life-support equipment. Status: Passed Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee March 27^th; to Appropriations.

Prior Legislation.

SB 901 (Dodd) Establishes a comprehensive framework to address and prevent catastrophic wildfires including prevention and planning by the state's electric utilities, management of the state's forests, chaparrals, and other lands to prevent and defend against wildfires, and standards to stabilize IOUs in the event of extensive liability resulting from claims under inverse condemnation. Status: Chapter 626, Statutes of 2018.

SB 1028 (Hill) Requires IOUs to file annual wildfire mitigation plans and requires the CPUC to review and comment on those plans. Also required POUs and electrical co-ops to determine their risk of catastrophic wildfire that can be caused by their electric lines and equipment and, if a risk exists, submit wildfire mitigation plans to their governing board for approval. Status: Chapter 598, Statutes of 2016.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Association Of California Water Agencies
El Dorado Irrigation District
Rural County Representatives Of California
Sempra Energy Utilities

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Kellie Smith / U. & E. /

See Application (A.) 08 12 021, resulting in Decision (D.) 12 04 024. ↑
See Resolution ESRB 8. ↑
See R.18-12-005. ↑

AB 868: Electrical corporations: wildfire mitigation plans.

News Coverage: