[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6228245,"mediaKeyId","3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec","parentId",3476819,"title","SCE expands consequence modeling, adopts zonal fire‑climate approach and ties inspections to mitigation selection","audioSeconds",2519,"startMs",4582395,"endMs",7101515,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec&start=4582&end=7101","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec/thumbnail_4582395.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6228245/California/SCE-expands-consequence-modeling-adopts-zonal-fireclimate-approach-and-ties-inspections-to-mitigation-selection","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228245-d9b3a45cbaf072a77d6311c665e86000/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933717&Signature=h8jBav-lfWPHih8hi9wEmtaCrf~nCaaiYzIqVq3OnFPLo9U8E8W~IS8LTyUV27WvR0h2nzopmL0sn4aFR1r3v2xv7eh49tdRQWFlxi32M2QXG9648xqYjTY5u0~EFqLp3e2djrcBIcXDudhTtNy7gd67irKpchBl-EIoPRck0pkFZmyzXe-Hey~TQO3YomumgAV7xup8459DlxX51eA5lbTV0IqZ1dWcgSsCJT3gqYFkD901syXzup~xzsEKmhklPD7UZZm7P8Low2OFxl8nk9Sa6EsqKG9yWaXw5Zp4DNxIFWzIBsslzMWS7ed-QUHotbXvetH1NjEF3vQC4zK2eQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety","date","2025-05-24T00:10:52.213Z","article","Southern California Edison told the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety that it has retooled consequence modeling and inspection practices to improve localized assessments and to more tightly connect findings to mitigation priorities.

“We expanded our wildfire simulations to cover our complete service territory. Originally, we were just doing the HFRA plus a buffer. Now we've expanded it to our complete service territory,” SCE presenter Ray said. He described three principal changes: covering the full territory in consequence modeling (not only HFRA), using regional fire‑climate zones to select representative worst fire days for each zone, and incorporating building‑loss factors and other condition‑specific refinements.

SCE’s key changes and practices:
- Expanded consequence modeling: SCE said it moved from modeling only HFRA plus a buffer to simulating ignitions across its complete service territory (including lines into neighboring states where relevant) to capture non‑HFRA risks as well.
- Fire‑climate zones: The company now subdivides its territory into zones so that each zone’s worst fire days are used for probabilistic consequence modeling, rather than using the single set of worst days for the entire territory.
- Inspection program and intervals: SCE explained it combines ground and aerial (drone) inspections to achieve a 360‑degree view and that inspection intervals are risk‑prioritized: yearly inspections for the severest areas, asset‑specific cycles for high‑consequence areas and at least once every three years in other HFRA areas. Ray said SCE inspects roughly 200,000 of about 285,000 distribution assets in its HFRA annually.
- Fire‑incident preliminary analysis (FIPA): SCE described a process that reviews every repair order and ignition, categorizes probable drivers, and then adjusts inspection forms, prioritization and mitigation choices. Ray gave examples where investigations changed inspection questionnaires and led to focused pilots on secondary conductors and upgraded transmission structure standards.

How mitigations are evaluated: SCE said it uses a multi‑attribute risk score (MARS) and an IWMS segmentation process to prioritize mitigations by consequence, then layers probability and cost‑effectiveness analysis when selecting mitigations. SCE stressed a human review remains part of selection to account for feasibility and field conditions.

What SCE did not claim: The presentation described internal modeling improvements, inspection practices and how investigation findings alter practice. It did not announce a regulatory filing or a final, prescriptive mitigation list at the meeting.

Implication: SCE’s zonal, full‑territory consequence approach and the FIPA feedback loop aim to make mitigation choices more local and evidence‑driven and to refine inspection practices that feed operational decisions such as PSPS thresholds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2026-2028 Base Wildfire Mitigation Plan Workshop - Part 3","oneSentenceSummary","Southern California Edison said it expanded consequence simulations to its full service territory, adopted zonal fire‑climate selection for worst days and tightened a feedback loop from inspection findings to mitigation selection through a Fire‑Incident Preliminary Analysis process.","taxTitle","Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",16242,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6228247,"SDG&E details WINS risk-model upgrades, lifecycle-cost analysis and mitigation effectiveness",385,1006775,1392540,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec&start=1006&end=1392","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec/thumbnail_1006775.jpg","/articles/6228247/California/SDGE-details-WINS-risk-model-upgrades-lifecycle-cost-analysis-and-mitigation-effectiveness","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228247-cd5eff0ff5aa664dd30c546f611a7f32/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933717&Signature=IGD-22sQGQPU~jWefadXQxgV~fL1EmiXT1ZzHtORzBnmoLaornv-7ZtvsCdaYfnGtI8MLCD~2aPp1T~4Uh5JA8e7wnROeNWgCCqHJ3xamgPE4N7ePN1eZVtATynetd1FKE9WAMhT1vdZ-gSF9kcUmdX9cIhIOVoGXyhhiim0PAdVyTvhY65WIXOgE4ywvqjY2n0k4~ufp9qejkJCEGfgsYRTzQQ-iHlv8IfZgNvVMyfJxdwSrqUdvvt6MA3ponr7pjLItSQ6Ry4zki0DVHW3QT1sGbr2GpI-KMM5jyRqXRHltDUsUkjNKWh5kmevz117GKihfRxOPmA-FKryqQ9hpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Diego Gas & Electric told the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety that it has substantially upgraded its wildfire risk-analytics platform, merging planning and operations models, expanding Monte Carlo simulations, and adding life‑cycle costing and risk‑aversion inputs to inform mitigation choices.

“We've been working really hard the last probably 6 months to align requirements from WMP, RAMP, and 84,” Joaquin Sebastian, SDG&E’s wildfire risk analytics manager, said. “When we started running, the probabilistic calculations, we ran into a computational limitation. We were only able to run hundred thousand simulations. Then we moved to 1,000,000, and now we are in 5,000,000. And, hopefully, pretty soon, we can run up to 10,000,000 simulations.”

Model changes and capabilities described by SDG&E:
- Platform consolidation: SDG&E said it integrated the WINS planning tool and the WINS OPS operational tool on a shared probabilistic model so planning and real‑time de‑energization decisions use consistent analytics.
- Monte Carlo and tail‑risk estimation: The company said it now produces expected-value and tail‑risk estimates to compare mitigations at a feeder/segment level under many weather/fuel scenarios.
- Lifecycle-cost analysis: SDG&E said it compares mitigations over a 55‑year window per the guidance it cited, factoring installation, ongoing maintenance, and shared foundational costs. “When we are thinking to deploy, sustained mitigation for 55 years, is not only the CapEx or the installation cost where we need to look at it. It's also all the ongoing cost that certain mitigations need to happen to maintain a level of effectiveness,” Sebastian said.
- Validation and reproducibility: presenters said inputs, outputs and model snapshots are stored in AWS to enable replication, and third‑party reviews are part of the validation plan.

Mitigation‑effectiveness estimates presented:
- SDG&E said its subject‑matter‑expert and data‑driven method yields very high modeled effectiveness for strategic undergrounding; presenters gave a system‑level figure of roughly 99% effectiveness for undergrounding in reducing the modeled ignition pathway.
- For combined covered conductor (including falling‑conductor protection and early fall detection), SDG&E presented a combined effectiveness of about 58.1% in the company’s analysis.

How SDG&E combines metrics: SDG&E said the model evaluates expected value, residual/tail risk, life‑cycle cost and risk aversion to choose mitigations. Joaquin Sebastian described subject‑matter weighting where low counts of historical ignitions require combining data review with SME judgment to estimate effectiveness, and then applying those estimates in a probabilistic simulation.

What SDG&E did not claim: The company presented internal model outputs and scenario comparisons; it did not present a final regulator-approved project list converting model outputs into mandatory work orders. Presenters also said climate‑change adjustments and population changes are not yet included in all models but are under evaluation.

Implication: SDG&E’s modeling upgrades signal stronger integration between planning and operational decision tools and a shift to lifecycle and tail‑risk metrics in selecting expensive mitigations such as undergrounding versus covered conductor.","SDG&E told the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety that it has consolidated risk‑modeling tools, increased Monte Carlo simulation scale, and added life‑cycle costs and risk‑aversion factors to evaluate wildfire mitigations over a 55‑year horizon.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6228248,"SDG&E says CPUC rate-case reduced near-term undergrounding; long-term undergrounding remains strategy",763,4160,767185,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec&start=4&end=767","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec/thumbnail_4160.jpg","/articles/6228248/California/SDGE-says-CPUC-rate-case-reduced-near-term-undergrounding-long-term-undergrounding-remains-strategy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228248-c681e21d78ef396fc5d581bc60d97ba0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933717&Signature=OBlq9Jgy0QmzEs03Knxd9sklolWBgdAr~AOMec-TBhFqYkM0a1rVQiP8v4AYuUmnqZWaxUEtB5sxpmUIp5~FQ7jeMChQtnEb8Ds7tYfh-~48CtgxkZ5GJxRoyfZgijsH5opCVjHLXV1ix1vFb-a3UIGAUQy3DqOY1reVi~bzltJwjoQF51uSyUOg8Bh4~nBJXhI2IS35TQwrwMpVdThrswISWl~NbziimMG7DGGnd7WnbK9iqNGkmtE763O9gwuj50JbXJLvNmAMnlzRZPLmb3M2A1ohGxUZCS0f5CJ9Bx1vblPFZ7sGgpbyVBP~TGhF05et9Y4iJhxx4jU-avibHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Diego Gas & Electric told the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety on a public presentation that a December 2024 general rate case decision reduced the company’s near-term funding for wildfire hardening, forcing SDG&E to scale back planned undergrounding and other programs.

“What was our authorized dollars for mitigation, was lower than what we asked for from the CPC decision. And so we have had to adjust our programs, namely these programs that, I wanted to highlight here, besides others is the strategic undergrounding, because of the authorized dollars is 0 miles for the next 2 years, 26 and '27, and then picking up again in 2028 with 50 miles,” SDG&E wildfire mitigation director Jonathan Waldemariam said during the presentation.

The change follows SDG&E’s earlier proposals in its Wildfire Mitigation Plan (WMP). SDG&E told regulators that it continues to regard strategic undergrounding as the most durable mitigation in many high-risk locations, but that the company must rely more on other measures while authorized mitigation spending remains constrained. SDG&E’s programs cited in the presentation include covered conductor, asset replacement integrated into undergrounding projects, advanced protection (including early-fault detection), and microgrids and communications upgrades—some of which SDG&E said will be reduced or delayed because of funding limits.

Why it matters: SDG&E said it serves about 1,500,000 electric meter accounts and that much of its overhead network and inspected inventory sit inside California’s highest fire-threat areas. The company argued undergrounding yields the greatest lifecycle risk reduction in many locations but is capital intensive.

Key program changes and targets explained in the meeting:
- SDG&E described its WMP-cycle intent to install 50 miles of undergrounding and 130 miles of covered conductor for 2026–2028, but noted the CPUC-authorized dollars constrained near-term work and altered pacing.
- SDG&E said the company will integrate certain asset-replacement activities into undergrounding projects rather than run separate replacement programs.
- The utility said its private-LTE communications and some microgrid installs will be slowed or scoped down after 2025 because of funding limits.

SDG&E presenters framed the adjustments as a response to the regulator’s decision, not a change in long-term strategy. “We really want to go forward with trying to eliminate these risks… we believe that [undergrounding] is the best mitigation that we can put in place,” Waldemariam said, while acknowledging near-term limits.

SDG&E also said it expects to seek additional authorizations through state programs and filings. Waldemariam estimated the company would submit its SB 884 application later this year, saying the firm was “still kind of developing our scope and…and, you know, all the analysis that's required for the requirements. So, we're thinking later this year.”

Context and constraints: SDG&E tied the funding changes to the CPUC general-rate-case outcome and to what it described as unusually severe wind and PSPS activity in December 2024–January 2025. The utility said two and a half weeks of high winds and a large PSPS activation pressed operational systems and highlighted the need for sustained mitigations.

What was not decided: The presentation outlined SDG&E’s proposed targets and described near-term reductions in activity owing to the CPUC decision; it did not include formal regulatory approvals or votes. The company said it plans to pursue additional filings and program authorization in future proceedings.

What comes next: SDG&E representatives said they would continue to refine scopes and budgets and return to regulators in subsequent filings and program applications. The utility emphasized it will continue vegetation management, inspections and other operational mitigations while pursuing longer-term undergrounding and covered-conductor rollout.","San Diego Gas & Electric told the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety that a December 2024 CPUC general-rate-case decision reduced the money available for wildfire hardening, forcing cuts in near‑term undergrounding and other programs while the company keeps undergrounding as its preferred long‑term mitigation.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6228246,"SDG&E presents expanded drone inspections, early‑fault detection and a TCC effort to limit PSPS scope",629,2708460,3337795,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec&start=2708&end=3337","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3476819-0078b46e9075c5df0ef804441429c8ec/thumbnail_2708460.jpg","/articles/6228246/California/SDGE-presents-expanded-drone-inspections-earlyfault-detection-and-a-TCC-effort-to-limit-PSPS-scope","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6228246-db7b7a629d6957e58762924553dc8c0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933717&Signature=U3n-0QYnBDFU9gRz3UVg5gnmaIFbz5eMtRWpCHC57R0CuPpe8V~sIa2HCm~~v83l8iyz34QmvUGSYEI0jPVcRc~o8pia6yp6Ny9QQOqYfINzdw8gG7zq2u8Iz2SH5sZnZf2QHQsExiWaommtEbcYAuQ0yZP5~pMQCUJXagVv3UvduAm7W41OPYjL4XaIahdRRXTfWtGJ4T5CBhdkLIjRNQT8cDAHvKqv6kritbuJ2yU06iYcBV7M657qfmdeI41azHipr~Vx-btX~Yl7uy9E3PI6YNghwZiBtoxZ9kNUExPTVdQN3z2gEy7GTmeNIluDj6obZ3AjmvTrPbas6jbJAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Diego Gas & Electric told the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety that it is expanding risk‑informed drone inspections, adding early‑fault detection sensors and using a Temporary Construction and Compliance (TCC) analytic effort to prioritize corrections that can reduce the number of customers exposed to public safety power shutoffs.

“We intend to do about 6,500 drone inspections” in the WMP cycle and “the sensor would be either a radio frequency sensor or a power quality sensor,” SDG&E wildfire mitigation programs manager Lina McMillan said during the presentation. McMillan described the early‑fault detection program as a technology that “uses real time monitoring to detect incipient faults before the fault actually occurs on the grid,” which then triggers targeted field patrols.

TCC and PSPS reduction: SDG&E described TCC (temporary construction and compliance) as a wings‑ops‑driven workflow that identifies infractions on highest‑risk assets and scores them by potential PSPS impact; SDG&E said fixing those infractions can avoid lowering wind‑speed de‑energization thresholds for affected structures. “If we can fix or resolve those infractions, then we don't have to reduce the wind speed thresholds for, you know, those specific structures or the specific circuit segments, and those areas can remain at their baseline wind speed threshold,” McMillan said.

Inspection program specifics and prioritization:
- SDG&E said it maintains a weather‑station network and leverages 30‑second reads during high‑wind events to reduce unnecessary de‑energizations.
- The risk‑informed drone program combines historical asset data, intelligent image processing (IIP), WINS Ops probability of failure and ignition, and consequence modeling to optimize inspection scope and routing.
- SDG&E told regulators it uses a cost‑benefit and efficiency optimization process to determine which structures should be inspected by drone and that those targeted structures are re‑scoped annually.

Customer resiliency: McMillan said SDG&E plans three customer‑resiliency initiatives targeted at high‑fire‑threat‑district customers (programs include assessments, generator rebates, and targeted supports) and that situational awareness and analytics helped SDG&E avoid de‑energization for some customers during recent high‑wind events.

What the presentation did not announce: SDG&E described program targets, pilot results and internal prioritization tools; it did not seek or announce formal new regulatory approvals at the meeting. SDG&E also said some programs' near‑term scope may be reduced because of CPUC‑authorized funding levels discussed elsewhere in the presentation.","SDG&E described a multi‑layered inspection and operational program that uses risk‑informed drone inspections, early‑fault sensors, sectionalizing and a Temporary Construction and Compliance (TCC) approach to prioritize corrective work so circuits can remain at baseline PSPS thresholds when safe.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

SCE expands consequence modeling, adopts zonal fire‑climate approach and ties inspections to mitigation selection

SDG&E details WINS risk-model upgrades, lifecycle-cost analysis and mitigation effectiveness

SDG&E says CPUC rate-case reduced near-term undergrounding; long-term undergrounding remains strategy

SDG&E presents expanded drone inspections, early‑fault detection and a TCC effort to limit PSPS scope