Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the WMP Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Energy Safety updates WMP decisions, outlines SB 254 timeline and advises caution on model precision
Summary
Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety staff told the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board they will publish updated Wildfire Mitigation Plan guidelines this fall to align with SB 254, and advised greater transparency and caution when using absolute wildfire-risk model values under extreme conditions.
The Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety (Energy Safety) told the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board on March 4 that it is revising guidance and analytic processes for Wildfire Mitigation Plans to implement requirements in Senate Bill 254 and to improve utility risk modeling.
Steve Kerr, program and project supervisor with Energy Safety’s Electric Safety Policy Division, summarized recent WMP draft decisions and timeline adjustments. He said decisions for several investor-owned utilities and transmission owners were issued in January–February 2026 and that Energy Safety expects to publish updated WMP guidelines in draft form for comment with a target of fall publication. “We will hold public workshops through spring aiming to publish a draft for comments in the summer or fall of this year,” Kerr said.
Kerr and senior policy advisers outlined two near-term priorities under SB 254: (1) requiring an estimated “cost per avoided ignition” for each risk and (2) aligning WMP schedules with general rate case cycles. Kerr also described a resiliency study required by SB 254 that will involve Cal OES, Cal Fire, the CPUC and Energy Safety collaborating on recommendations to the California Earthquake Authority to strengthen wildfire-financial resilience.
On wildfire risk modeling, staff presented an initial draft board report that recommends increased transparency and warns against treating modeled absolute risk values as precise measures under extreme conditions. Senior policy adviser Sean Richards said modeling uncertainty grows markedly in extreme or “tail” scenarios and recommended that Energy Safety and utilities compare relative rankings to tail-case analyses and consider alternative modeling approaches. “We found that the uncertainty increases significantly under extreme wildfire conditions,” Richards said, urging Energy Safety to avoid decisions based solely on absolute modeled values.
Kerr also briefed the board on the Risk Model Working Group’s approaches document, which will summarize how utilities model ignition likelihood and fire consequence and is scheduled for internal draft review by the end of summer 2026 and broader publication by year-end.
Board members offered technical questions about timing and the RMWG product structure and asked staff to clarify whether the approaches document will include per-utility descriptions; staff committed to follow up with details.
Energy Safety staff also noted changes to safety culture assessments and executive compensation decisions required or influenced by SB 254; a joint workshop on Safety Culture Assessments with the CPUC and Energy Safety is scheduled for March 12.
A staff draft report on model adequacy was published for public comment on Feb. 13; the comment period closes March 6, and staff plans to return a final version to the board for adoption in June.
