CPUC staff seek input on updates to SB 884 undergrounding guidelines as stakeholders press for stronger review, data and cost limits

California Public Utilities Commission staff on an April workshop (date provided to participants but not in the record) convened stakeholders to discuss proposed updates to the Commission’s guidelines implementing SB 884 — the expedited undergrounding program for large investor‑owned electric utilities — and to solicit written feedback on application requirements, phase‑2 conditions, audit and review procedures, and data retention.

The workshop matters because SB 884 makes undergrounding optional for the three large investor‑owned utilities (PG and E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric) but ties cost recovery to a two‑agency, time‑limited review process. Any change to the CPUC guidelines affects what information utilities must provide, what costs can be recorded to balancing accounts or memorandum accounts, how and when ratepayers may ultimately bear costs, and how projects will be prioritized for wildfire risk reduction.

Staff summarized the 3‑phase structure in the current SPD‑15 guidance: Phase 1 is Energy Safety’s plan review; Phase 2 is the CPUC cost‑recovery application and conditional approval for costs to be recorded to a one‑way balancing account; Phase 3 is construction and monitoring, with six‑month progress reports and post‑implementation review mechanisms. Staff proposed a set of specific additions to the Phase‑2 application requirements, new Phase‑2 conditions and two alternative approaches for auditing/reviewing costs recorded to the balancing account.

Proposed application and documentation additions

CPUC staff proposed requiring utilities to submit a forecasted scope for all projects across the 10‑year plan (noting that staff understands forecasts will change), and to provide a detailed explanation whenever a project includes spans extending beyond the High Fire Threat District (HFTD). Staff also proposed that utilities include an updated…