CPUC convenes Utility Safety Culture Working Group; asks feedback on third-party assessor by July 15

The California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) Safety Policy Division on the working group kickoff said the panel created by Decision 25-01-031 must be established by 07/15/2025 and that the groupwill help implement the commissionsafety-culture assessment framework for large investor-owned electric and gas utilities.

Carolina Contreras, senior engineer in the CPUC Safety Policy Division, opened the meeting and summarized the commission order and the groups purpose, saying the group "must be established by 07/15/2025, which is a hundred and 80 days after the issuance of the decision, which is the reason why we are all here today to kick off the working group formally." The session set expectations for a collaborative, education-focused forum intended to build a common understanding of safety culture and to improve the assessment process.

The kickoff included a 30-minute presentation by Mark Fleming, a faculty member at Saint Marys University and a long-time safety-culture researcher, who described safety culture as a construct that explains why organizations with written safety systems can still experience catastrophic failures. "So what is safety culture? So it's an abstract concept that was created to describe collective failure to implement known controls to prevent catastrophic events," Fleming said, stressing that assessments must probe underlying assumptions rather than rely solely on surface indicators such as slogans or single survey items.

Why this matters: SPD said comprehensive assessments will be large-scale, predominantly qualitative evaluations that triangulate survey results, interviews, focus groups, document review and workplace observation. The division told the working group that the CPUCs approach is aligned with international guidance (IAEA) and with recognized safety-management standards, and that assessments will be conducted by a third-party evaluator selected through a competitive process.

Near-term schedule and request for input: SPD told participants it expects San Diego Gas & Electric(SDG&E) to begin its assessment around 08/01/2025 and requested written comments on minimum qualifications and selection criteria for the third-party evaluator. SPD asked participants to submit feedback by 07/15/2025 to Richard White and to copy the working-group distribution list.

What the experts and participants emphasized: - Comprehensive, multi-method assessments: Fleming and SPD emphasized that comprehensive evaluations require separate analysis of multiple methods and an interpretive step by subject-matter experts to surface "basic assumptions" beneath espoused values and artifacts. He warned against treating perceptual survey scores as precise metrics and called for narrative-driven analysis. - Non-punitive and confidential engagement: SPD and attendees stressed the need for a safe space to discuss weaknesses; SPD said the working group will not routinely record or apply AI analysis to discussions except where explicitly agreed. The stated aim is to promote "humble inquiry," active listening, and the sharing of lessons without fear that those admissions will be used punitively. - Executive engagement and trust: Multiple participants, including Cedric Williams (Chief Safety Officer, SoCalGas) and Ken Koss (CPUC), urged stronger vertical and lateral information flow inside utilities and said executive leadership is needed to translate stated values into consistent behaviors. Several participants flagged trust as a foundational requirement for open information flow. - Limited pool of qualified evaluators: Fleming cautioned that a small number of providers have demonstrated experience conducting the in‑depth, largely qualitative, multi-method assessments SPD envisions. He recommended criteria that prioritize demonstrable experience with qualitative fieldwork, triangulation, and interpretation grounded in safety-culture theory rather than only survey administration.

Participation and governance: SPD said the working group will meet quarterly at minimum, be supported by an independent subject-matter facilitator, and require each entity to designate a primary contact. SPD clarified that joint IOUs are required to participate, Energy Safety and other stakeholders may join voluntarily, and that the group may limit participants for effectiveness in some sessions.

Next steps and materials: SPD will finalize quarterly meeting dates, circulate a distribution list for meeting materials and noted Energy Safety offered to present its experience from assessments it has run since 2021. SPD invited written comments by 07/15/2025 on third-party evaluator qualifications to Richard White and said it would share the engagement-expectations document and the work plan with participants.

Ending note: Participants voiced broad support for the collaborative, non-punitive approach while acknowledging the challenge of turning abstract cultural insights into concrete improvement plans. Speakers repeatedly urged the group to foster trust, allow for sharing of failures as well as successes, and to provide materials in advance to increase productive discussion.