California Wildfires: Feeling the Heat
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
California Wildfires: Feeling the Heat • Tara Kaushik, Partner, Holland & Knight, LLP • Joy Mastache, Senior Attorney, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District • Justin Wynne, Partner, Braun Blaising Smith Wynne, P.C. • Laura Manz, Director, Navigant Consulting, Inc. • Anne Selting, Analytical Manager & Head of North American P3 and Project Ratings, S&P Global Infrastructure Ratings publicpower.org/academy Wildfires and the Effect of Climate Change Tara Kaushik Holland & Knight California Wildfires: Feeling the Heat A Utility Perspective Joy Mastache, Senior Attorney APPA Legal & Regulatory Conference October 21, 2019 4:00 p.m. Powering forward. Together. Wildfire Ignition Only 1 in 10 wildfires are related to utility infrastructure • Objects contacting lines – Vegetation – Animals – Foreign materials (mylar balloons etc.) • Power lines slapping together • Equipment failure – Poles and attachments SMUD’s 2018 Outage Report – Connections • Downed power lines 5 Key Risk Drivers and Impacts Drivers and impacts are indicators that a risk event could occur, not a reflection of actual or threatened conditions. 6 The Wildfire Mitigation Plan (WMP) Elements of Wildfire Plan Overview of SMUD’s WMP & SMUD’s Low Public Wildfire Risk Profile Outreach i Qualified Enterprise Risk Independent Approach Evaluator’s Report Board WMP Presentation Requirements and CWSAB Review September 11, 2019 7 Board Policy Committee Meeting and Special SMUD Board of Directors Meeting Wildfire Prevention Programs Vegetation Design Inspection Recloser & Situational Education & Management & & De- Awareness Outage & Fuels Construction Maintenance Energization Comm. Reduction • Pole and wire • Non- • Aerial and • Transmission • Weather • Critical event clearing expulsion ground and stations messaging equipment patrols distribution • Right of way protocols • Camera pilot maintenance • System • LiDAR and upgrades infrared technologies September 11, 2019 8 Board Policy Committee Meeting and Special SMUD Board of Directors Meeting Plan Effectiveness Le a d Performance Program Monitoring Executive Me tric s Targets • Completion of • Operations vegetation level • Chief Grid • Wire down clearing for • Compliance Strategy and events lines and rights and quality Operations • Ignition events of way assurance Officer • Miles of line • Internal and/or inspected external audit September 11, 2019 9 Board Policy Committee Meeting and Special SMUD Board of Directors Meeting Costs • Wildfire planning and prevention programs • Liability – Strict liability • Utility is liable if electric facilities a substantial cause of the fire • Inverse condemnation theory based on Constitution’s “takings” clause – Negligence • Prudent utility operator in circumstances • Compliance with regulations and industry standards • Insurance – Utilities paying up to 100% of liability coverage – Property owners unable to obtain coverage 10 Thank you. 11 A Changing Landscape: New Wildfire Regulations and Oversight for California’s Publicly-Owned Utilities Justin Wynne Braun Blaising Smith Wynne, P.C. 915 L Street, Suite 1480 Sacramento, CA, 95184 13 Background General Order 95 vs. NESC 14 California never adopted and does NOT use National Electrical Safety Code 1915: R.R. Commission authorized to modify overhead electrical line construction requirements 1922: R.R. Commission adopts General Order (GO) 64 1941: GO 95 replaces GO 64 1997: GO 165 Adopted CPUC Jurisdiction 15 CPUC has no authority over Publicly Owned Utilities (POUs) unless expressly granted by the Legislature. (Inyo v. Pub. Utilities Com., 26 Cal. 3d 154, 166 (1980)) Minimum overhead construction requirements set in statute. (Cal. Pub. Util. Code (PUC) §§ 8001-8038) Applies to all “persons” (PUC § 8002) CPUC authorized to inspect, make changes, and enforce statutory requirements. (PUC § 8037) CPUC Jurisdiction 16 1922 to 1998, CPUC never asserted jurisdiction over POUs. In 1998, CPUC asserted authority under §§ 8001-8038 extends to POUs. (D.98-03-036) Justified based on Polk v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. 2d 519, 541 (1945) CPUC refuses to expressly assert penalty authority, but has never issued a fine against a POU. California POUs universally follow relevant GOs (95, 128, 165, 174) as primary industry standards. 17 Evolution of Wildfire Regulations 18 Response to 2007/2008 Fires 19 2008: CPUC initiates Rulemaking 2009: CPUC Adopts Interim maps designating high fire threat zones Time-of-trim guidelines Increased vegetation clearances in high fire threat zones Minimum repair timelines for safety hazards Increased frequency of inspections in high fire threat zones Notification requirement when hazard discovered Response to 2007/2008 Fires 20 2012: CPUC Adopts Increased requirements for Communications Companies Increased frequency of performing pole loading calculations Requirements to help identify equipment owners on joint use poles 2012: CPUC approves SDG&E De-energization program 2012: CPUC initiates process to develop statewide wildfire threat map 21 Response to 2015 Fires 22 Butte Fire ignited outside of high fire threat area Statewide mapping process starts over Extensive map development and review process Each POU serves as a lead, drawing the map boundaries for its territory Reviewed by industry review team Reviewed by CALFIRE and team of Experts Legislature Loses Patience 23 Senate Bill 1028 (2015) Requires IOUs to develop Wildfire Mitigation Plans Requires POUs to assess wildfire risk If significant risk found, POU must identify “wildfire mitigation measures” to reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire (PUC § 8387(c). 24 Response to 2017 Fires 25 CPUC Adopts Statewide High Fire Threat Map Tier 3 (extreme) Tier 2 (elevated) Tier 1 (normal) CPUC Response to 2017 Fires 26 CPUC Adopts Reduced hazard correction timelines based on Fire Threat Tier Massive increase in time-of-trim guidelines in the HFTD Increase in minimum clearance requirements in Nor. Cal. HFTD Increased wire to wire clearance requirements CPUC directs PG&E and SCE to Implement de-energization programs similar to SDG&E Legislative Response to 2017 Fires 27 SB 901 (2018) All POUs (regardless of size and risk) must adopt Wildfire Mitigation Plans Present to governing board by Jan. 1, 2020 Include minimum elements Identify mitigation measures Metrics for measuring plan performance Consider de-energization and recloser protocols Requirement for audit performed by qualified independent evaluator 28 Response to 2018 Fires 29 CPUC Focuses on IOU WMPs Key issue is Metrics AB 1054, AB 111 (2019) Wildfire Safety Division In CPUC for 2 Years, then moves to Resources Agency Has primary oversight for IOU WMPs Wildfire Safety Advisory Board 7 Members (at least 3 with experience in electric infrastructure) Makes recommendation to Wildfire Safety Division on metrics POUs submit WMPs to Board each year. Board provides POUs with “comments and advisory opinions” on content and sufficiency of WMPs. Response to 2018 Fires 30 2019: CPUC Adopts De-energization Guidelines IOU retains ultimate discretion Special notification requirements for public safety partners, critical facilities, and “access and functional needs populations.” Timing requirements for notifications Requirement to develop interim transmission-level de-energization protocols (consider impacts to POUs) 800000 750000 700000 Public Safety Power Shutoff Events 600000 Customer Accounts Taken Offline 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 60000 49264 20837 22000 13000 3 3 93 14000 650 5800 379 19 41 34 0 31 9/21/17 10/20/17 10/23/17 12/6/17 12/14/17 1/27/18 10/15/18 10/19/18 10/14/18 11/11/18 11/8/18 12/29/18 6/8/19 9/23/19 10/9/19 10/10/19 SDG&E SDG&E SDG&E SDG&E SDG&E SDG&E SDG&E SDG&E PG&E SDG&E SCE SCE PG&E PG&E PG&E SCE Thank you! 32 Justin Wynne Braun Blaising Smith Wynne, P.C. 915 L Street, Suite 1480 Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected] WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN STRATEGIES AND STANDARDS OCTOBER 21, 2019 33 / ©2019 NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WMP FRAMEWORKS I. Overview I. Objectives of the Plan II. Objectives of the WMP II. Description of Risk-Minimizing Strategies III. Roles & Responsibilities III. Risk Analysis & Risk Drivers IV. Wildfire Risks & Drivers V. Wildfire Prevention Strategies IV. Wildfire Prevention Strategies VI. Community Outreach / Public Awareness V. Emergency Preparedness & Response VII. Restoration of Service VI. Performance Metrics & Monitoring VIII. Evaluating the Plan CPUC Template WMP CMUA WMP Template WMP CMUA IX. Independent Auditor / Evaluator VII. Cost Estimates for Proposed Strategies Source: CMUA POU WMP Template (2018)_ / CPUC R. 18-10-007 ALJ Ruling (2019) 34 / ©2019 NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED METRICS AND MEASURES Metrics for Plan Effectiveness • First round of metrics are activity-based targets – such as number of trees trimmed or miles of power lines hardened • Next round of metrics intend to gauge the of effectiveness of wildfire mitigation effectiveness risk reduction – E.g., Number of ignition events during high threat periods Continuous Improvement • Ten year gap after regulatory guidance for SDG&E during the wake of the 2007 fires • The last five years include several of the most catastrophic wildfires in the state’s history • Utility personnel training for integration of wildfire mitigation strategies within standard operating practices 35 / ©2019 NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WILDFIRE THREAT MAPS Source: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/firethreatmaps/ 36 / ©2019 NAVIGANT