[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6210969,"mediaKeyId","3702128-0be3458c67ae37d491b55e544fc07f91","parentId",3702128,"title","Wildfire Safety Advisory Board adopts 2025–2027 strategic plan","audioSeconds",648,"startMs",5622000,"endMs",6270000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3702128-0be3458c67ae37d491b55e544fc07f91&start=5622&end=6270","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3702128-0be3458c67ae37d491b55e544fc07f91/thumbnail_5622000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6210969/California/Wildfire-Safety-Advisory-Board-adopts-20252027-strategic-plan","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210969-a4a30d8b6f072e35a5fad5e2256fa840/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900607&Signature=H1lCCty~YgGatm0Shc7Fw~DIUwFTiViytiO11mh945lBHCFYH-R4ilqGAn9fReEFU-Oy-599mXm3R-9gRgnmcu-lgOlegJhdTS~K40Mt25sMoesvHdJ3CFFJDBh9CRbUA1l143bGk2CRKP8Jd8vqXrnmMTPMalDNcrldZ9nQ7IyeyZ1oN5EyjK8Bdu3e2I6fdb0pQoZE2AgkqRMd-q1yKNL6VMyba4zJeyEvbJxgbnpub04wfn~7qpKy7C5yTsJKxO~mnidrY8GooSxw3Ai3Wkw5-lL7VR7g~D9PUGERbMSINH2O1WXwcUQaVLGkQHP18QEabgXHbvRUgAPowDstpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety","date","2025-06-07T16:10:59.943Z","article","The Wildfire Safety Advisory Board voted unanimously June 4 to adopt its updated 2025–2027 strategic plan, which retains four priorities and adds clearer objectives, associated actions, milestones, and key performance indicators.

Chair Jessica Block moved adoption of the update; the motion passed 7-0. Board members said the spreadsheet-format plan is intended to be an operational tool: it reframes prior progress statements into objective statements, lists actions and milestones for each objective, and names KPIs for quarterly tracking.

The plan’s four priorities are: (1) deepen collaboration with the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety and external partners; (2) actualize the board’s mission in coordination with OEIS; (3) retain and develop staff; and (4) create structures and practices for successful implementation. Staff and the strategic planning committee updated objectives to be outcome-oriented and added actions and milestones that staff will report against throughout the year.

Mark Wenzel, staff, said the plan includes specific measures such as a board/staff satisfaction survey on communication frequency and depth, use of board member networks to support staff development, and a rubric to guide implementation tracking. He emphasized that the spreadsheet is deliberately practical: \"The plan keeps the 4 priorities. It updates the objectives, and then each of those objectives now has an associated actions and milestones,\" staff said.

Board member Haynes commended the planning work and the consultant-supported process that helped the board refocus after pandemic-era disruptions. \"I turn to you and applaud your effort for recognizing in 2023 that we were struggling to be able to emerge from the pandemic,\" Haynes said, noting the planning work helped the board prioritize statutory obligations and improve efficiency.

The motion to adopt included an instruction to add the board’s mission and vision statements to the top of the spreadsheet; staff agreed to incorporate that content. The board will receive quarterly updates on plan progress and will work with the strategic planning committee on any needed adjustments.

Less critical details: staff noted a recently hired senior policy adviser will start June 23 and that staff capacity increases (from two to four staff) underlie the board’s ability to implement the plan more fully.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Wildfire Safety Advisory Board Meeting - 6/4/25","oneSentenceSummary","The board unanimously adopted an updated 2025–2027 strategic plan on June 4 that keeps four priorities — collaboration with OEIS, implementing the board’s mission, staff development, and operational structures — and adds objectives, actions and milestones to guide work through 2027.","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},6210974,"Board adopts a new approach to reviewing publicly owned utility wildfire mitigation plans, prioritizing 14 in-depth reviews",1745,4043000,5788000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3702128-0be3458c67ae37d491b55e544fc07f91&start=4043&end=5788","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3702128-0be3458c67ae37d491b55e544fc07f91/thumbnail_4043000.jpg","/articles/6210974/California/Board-adopts-a-new-approach-to-reviewing-publicly-owned-utility-wildfire-mitigation-plans-prioritizing-14-in-depth-reviews","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210974-d8454d25ebdd1b5750670bb3d6d99b7b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900607&Signature=gIjDPBWHGVE4apdyDc892N1rRyB7iAHKDMhTPoJLMrm9e8wG8V0CsavjLcn84slFoGmpp9p0gfGKcrl~jDcX6yuO9hmVou6WSXbLrWHmO9HIQO7RssM9JVmpxgCG9SSPa1iSKALoNwFT18JzajZnkAXb0Wh9VjT7LaweVowrcWBD3eCghRHxAvygmZwXm6BUN0d8f7SvJ7uNipo7g-gIRUSUPDsOR3NlTVxiSLpnzPjdquRg6KdS8Q9YfkTZXP3bSlTeZDCjg9h9oa9zZl-pHl31W4rM~9Z8eQoNgsIdM9gbFdTZQSQWoAZZb7aL~XN9vYIwc5s3ID1tTXRfj-B21g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Wildfire Safety Advisory Board on June 4 described a new, prioritized approach to reviewing the wildfire mitigation plans (WMPs) submitted by publicly owned utilities (POUs) and cooperatives. The board will review all POU plans but will select 14 POUs for deeper, topic-specific evaluations each year; this year the board will emphasize risk assessment and preemptive de‑energization capability.

Board staff explained the change as an attempt to use limited volunteer and staff time more efficiently while ensuring subject-matter expertise informs advisory opinions. The board will issue advisory opinions to every POU but will produce more detailed, focused feedback for the selected 14 that have higher overhead exposure in High Fire Threat Districts.

Staff said the board will develop a rubric and feedback template to drive consistent evaluations and to identify maturity and improvement opportunities. The rubric will allow the board to categorize plans as developing, accomplished, or exemplary across statutory topic areas and to rotate which POUs receive deeper review in future years. \"We plan on developing a feedback rubric ... that we can be clear of, like, when a plan is developing and the areas in which it is developing,\" the presenter said.

Staff indicated 21 POUs have some overhead circuits in High Fire Threat Districts; the initial prioritization targets those with the most exposure. The board will seek analytical feedback from all members and aim to limit individual board-member review burdens by preparing targeted questions that match each member’s expertise.

Municipal and cooperative representatives at the meeting welcomed the approach but urged early visibility into which topics will be prioritized in subsequent years so POUs can align their submissions. Justin Milne of the California Municipal Utilities Association asked whether the 14 statutory topic areas would be reviewed for every POU; staff clarified that all 14 topic areas will be evaluated for every POU, but the 14 prioritized POUs will receive deeper analysis on a small number of topics each year. A SMUD representative said the timing matters because many POUs will submit comprehensive plans in 2026 and urged early engagement so programmatic changes can be considered in those filings.

Staff proposed a tentative schedule: WMPs arrive by the July 1 statutory deadline, staff completes targeted reviews and queries in July–August, a public draft in early October, and a final staff draft for board consideration in December. Staff also said it will solicit clarification from POUs during the July–August review period when necessary.

The discussion included operational clarifications — staff will rotate which POUs receive deep review over time, and advisory opinions will be issued for all POUs. The board and several stakeholders stressed transparency and early engagement with POUs so the review process can inform upcoming comprehensive filings.

Less critical details: staff noted the board’s internal capacity has recently increased (from two to four staff), and that the new process grew out of the board’s experience reviewing plans in prior years where limited reviewer bandwidth produced broad comments rather than detailed, expert feedback.","The Wildfire Safety Advisory Board detailed a new review framework June 4 for publicly owned utilities (POUs): it will review all POU wildfire mitigation plans but prioritize 14 plans for in‑depth topical analysis, focusing this year on risk assessment and preemptive de‑energization.",{"_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},6210979,"Wildfire Safety Advisory Board approves 2025 recommendations to Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety",1047,1108000,2155000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3702128-0be3458c67ae37d491b55e544fc07f91&start=1108&end=2155","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3702128-0be3458c67ae37d491b55e544fc07f91/thumbnail_1108000.jpg","/articles/6210979/California/Wildfire-Safety-Advisory-Board-approves-2025-recommendations-to-Office-of-Energy-Infrastructure-Safety","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210979-d12a07cee5fc00e85aca52e81e054c04/orig.mp4?Expires=1770900607&Signature=JI~UJ1t18qxQMNOc1LIW-cqi0RMs9VRYP9ofGLnB5D2n5Ml7E2b2Q0V~dTMCu80OyYqGYuTiA1LNZ2V4omGCv1o0F4cNTrIKTQZdp7zCwBpYO3nV~Llz60hRpb7SK4MbbQECBE~-emnvTUJHhynZaWBtMX7wnl~es973vE1yZCXMWNjx-XjDFv8peNyIccA8UL5--wmI2zGe0oBGClbGg-qbjnYEqmhDLlqcy5gBo6V2R0zQABZ1WwiWv5xmU3PXrJNMgRaL6NvT7NOkUG4XK3zQNbxjks96Cm8ayGl~Z9gxiGhZG18DUic69dxh~amPlaqCwqMszvswX7Xb58djQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Wildfire Safety Advisory Board on June 4 approved its 2025 recommendations to the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety (OEIS), asking utilities and regulators to improve how mitigation effectiveness and wildfire risk are measured.

Board members voted 7-0 to adopt the recommendations after staff presented an analysis of wildfire ignitions and utility reporting, and after the board debated standards for risk-modeling and data transparency. The board’s package asks for clearer annual tracking of mitigation effectiveness, standardized reporting units, and model-comparison requirements for utilities’ wildfire spread and consequence calculations.

Board staff said existing public datasets give useful signals but have limits. “The red books data … are only those that CAL FIRE responded to, within the state responsibility area,” staff analyst Unique said, noting that the dataset omits some federal and other local responses and can mix electrical ignitions from non-utility residential equipment. Unique summarized the staff finding: “There is no clear trend in ignitions and fires over time,” and cautioned that weather and reporting differences complicate long-term interpretation.

Staff and consultants reviewed multiple measures — Cal Fire incident reports, ignition reports submitted to Energy Safety, and utility before-and-after comparisons. They told the board that small sample sizes, multiple mitigations applied to single circuits, and inconsistent reporting units (for example, circuit miles versus number of trees) make it difficult to isolate the effect of individual measures.

The board’s recommendations focus on three technical areas: (1) require utilities to test and compare multiple wildfire-spread models — at least three, including one open-source, peer-reviewed model — and justify model selection; (2) ask utilities and Energy Safety to report full distributions from probabilistic simulations rather than single-point metrics and to report an appropriate number of significant figures that reflect model uncertainty; and (3) develop standard units and an annual tracking dashboard that shows the effects of mitigation measures across utilities.

Sean Richards, senior policy adviser, explained the rationale for reporting distributions: “Reporting a single value from a distribution of simulations is a representation of the risks. Effective decision making and oversight require a better understanding of the distribution of risk, and actually those tail risks.” He added a technical caution on numeric reporting: “Reporting to these levels misrepresents the level of uncertainty throughout the risk model process, and provides a false level of confidence in model results.”

Board member Seifert, an ecological and wildfire modeler, supported the recommendations to use multiple models despite the extra work: “Recommendations to add more models may sound like a whole lot of extra work, and it probably is,” she said, adding that different model types can produce substantially different outputs and that ensemble comparisons can reduce the risk of relying on a single, possibly misleading model.

The board also asked staff to continue developing methods for comparing mitigations (such as covered conductors, undergrounding, and enhanced vegetation management) using standardized metrics and to request follow-up studies that use before-and-after analyses tailored to similar-weather days. The recommendations note a recent econometric/machine-learning study that compared ignitions before and after mitigations by controlling for weather and estimating avoided ignitions and cost per avoided ignition; the board cited that work as an example of methods it expects to encourage.

Outcome and next steps: the board voted to transmit the recommendations to OEIS as presented. Staff said it will continue work on implementation details — including the model-comparison specification, unit standardization, and a public tracking approach — and will follow up with utilities and OEIS on timelines.

The board’s recommendation packet, staff responses to earlier public comments, and the final staff draft were published on May 23 and will accompany the transmitted recommendations to OEIS.

Less critical details: staff noted that several utilities’ recent WMP filings and decision dates are forthcoming (for example, PacifiCorp ratification scheduled for June 26), and that Energy Safety is evaluating petitions and change requests submitted in April and May.","The Wildfire Safety Advisory Board voted unanimously June 4 to send its 2025 recommendations to the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, asking for clearer effectiveness tracking of mitigation measures and stricter standards around utility wildfire risk models.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Wildfire Safety Advisory Board adopts 2025–2027 strategic plan

Board adopts a new approach to reviewing publicly owned utility wildfire mitigation plans, prioritizing 14 in-depth reviews

Wildfire Safety Advisory Board approves 2025 recommendations to Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety