CPUC Workshop - 2021-02-03
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
California Public Utilities Commission
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Thanks, Coco. Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining our our, session this afternoon. Great to see a, a lot of participation here. As Coco said, my name is Shreyas, Jutger.
I'm with the California Workforce Development Board. And in in in my role there, my my function is primarily to build relationships and partnerships with other state agencies, to ensure that we're creating and supporting quality jobs and increased access to good jobs for disadvantaged populations, as we transition to a zero emission energy and transportation system, and really in all the ways that we're, addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation. And as some folks may know, the workforce development board and the PUC have entered into a a formal agreement, a memorandum of understanding, to work together on these issues that we, signed last fall. And, the work is gonna focus on a number of key industry sectors or climate change sectors, energy, transportation, broadly speaking, And within that, vegetation management, and really thinking about that interface of vegetation management and the energy systems or electricity systems, is one of our priority areas of focus. So looking forward to the discussion today, to hear folks' thoughts and and ideas for what more we can do, in the action plan, specifically and and in more, you know, specific, program areas or proceedings, again, to address the the workforce development component of vegetation management.
And, again, thinking within that, thinking mainly about how do we ensure that the jobs that are created are supported by the investments in wildfire safety result in good quality jobs, for folks in the labor market and that we're increasing access to those good jobs for for folks who are often left behind by economic development or economic opportunities. So, again, look forward to the discussion today.
Speaker 1
Thanks, Chris. And so just wanna make sure I was off mute. See, we got our poll results in. Looks like we have pretty good participation kind of across the board. I see representation from most, groups identified here except for, the labor industry, which is is great to see such a broad group and diverse group of people joining.
So welcome all. I would just like to start off the discussion before we get too deeply into anything else. As I as I do oftentimes in discussions with, the topic of wildfire is just to state, wild wildfires are a natural part of California ecosystem. And long before people inhabited, this land, fires existed. And so one of the things that I always like to stress as kind of a backdrop and underpinning of all of our discussions on wildfire issues is as the population continues to grow in the state, housing becomes less and less affordable and additional development and growth in what are called wildland urban interface or oftentimes referred to as WUI areas can be expected.
And so these particular WUI areas are also the areas that are most susceptible to damage from wildfires. And as a backdrop to all of this discussion, I think it's important that we all think about and think through some of the following as we have these discussions. One is, as a society and a community, how do we learn to live with fire? And then more so and and on topic of this particular dialogue, how do we consider impact to ESJ communities in the WUI as we kind of further our development and discussion, throughout the topic and breakout session today. And so Shreya has kinda covered a little bit about the topic that, he'll be able to focus in on a little more and guide the discussion around workforce development, specifically in the veg management space.
One of the areas that I want to help kinda frame our discussion around is a little more high level and specific to utilities. And so in that regard, I wanted to talk a little bit about the CPUC fire threat map, and I'm not sure how many of you. I know we have a pretty broad, group of people, and so I will be covering a little bit of a history of the map itself. And, for those of you who this is, old hat, you know, please bear with us. But, like most mapping products, the CPUC's fire threat map, it was initially scoped and developed through a rule making proceeding with a fairly specific and narrow focus, and that was to identify areas prone to promulgating large catastrophic fires in areas that should be subject to increased safety regulation.
And so when that map was originally adopted, back in late twenty seventeen, early twenty eighteen, it was developed with a vision for a ten year refresh cycle. Now since its adoption, California has seen some of the most, some of the worst fire seasons in the state's history, and several of those fires have involved utility facilities. And those devastating catastrophic events have really spurred a lot of action in response to deal with this seemingly kind of ever growing threat in the state. And so a lot of those actions are also things that are taken on by California Electric Utility. And so in the space of what we do in the wildfire safety division, and I had mentioned earlier with wildfire mitigation plan, we've seen in, for example, the 2020 wildfire mitigation plan, utilities outlined spending billions of dollars in responding to managing the wildfire risks.
Utilities are deploying the variety of strategies to mitigate these risks. They those span from operational to tactical to and structural efforts, including things like broad use of PSPS, increased vegetation management activities, extensive grid hardening, things like installing covered conductors, undergrounding, replacement of, existing infrastructure, expanded situational awareness capabilities. Those include things like, broader deployment of weather stations, grid censoring and monitoring devices, and so forth. And so the reason I wanted to talk a little bit today about the map and the CPC fire threat map is that it's that map which underpins many aspects of utility wildfire safety decision making and operations from identifying areas or potential areas for grid hardening or additional inspections to where veg management occurs to where PSPS may occur. And so it is a really important tool and aspect.
And, really, the main question that I wanna think about as we have the discussion today and we get into some more detail is, as use of the map continues to evolve and we evaluate whether or how the map should be refined or updated, how can we ensure that we take ESJ consideration into those updates and those changes as we move forward? And so that to me is really kind of where I'd like to start as far as framing the discussion. And, Shreya, I wanna pass it back to you. I don't know if there's any additional context you wanna provide relative to framing the workforce development issues pertaining to bench management. And if there aren't, I'm happy to kinda start diving into some of the topics and questions and stir up some discussion.
Speaker 2
I I think, why don't we go ahead to, discussion on on, the fire threat map and other issues? And then I'll I'll say a little bit more before we jump to the workforce development discussion, if that sounds okay.
Speaker 1
Awesome. Works for me. So, really, a a few things I wanna think through. When we talk about the CPUC fire threat map, as I mentioned, the the map was really initially built with a pretty focused and narrow scope. At that time, the use of, for example, something like PSPS as a mitigation strategy was not as prevalent as it is today.
And so azimep expands kinda beyond its initial scope and is subject to future updates, which it is through both the wildfire mitigation plan. There's a specific statutory element where utilities have to evaluate the sufficiency of that map as well as there is an open proceeding right now before the commission to make some updates to the existing areas relative to a petition filed by Southern California Edison. And so as those updates are, being undertaken, the first question I have or series of questions I have is, are there scenarios or use cases where it may make sense to have variations of this map developed for specific intended use cases? And if so, what are those scenarios and use cases? How can those maps consider different ESG factors, like demographics, societal cost, and so forth?
And what factors should be considered? And then finally, what types of tools and source information should be used to inform these ESG factors? For example, something like CalEnviroScreen, and where would these types of tools best fit? And so I know I threw a series of questions, but it's really intended to start getting people thinking and discussing around how can we start considering various ESJ factors into potentially adding additional layers of context to an existing map or developing potentially additional mapping products. And so I'm very curious to see or hear from folks in the audience and have thoughts on this particular issue.
So for our monitor, I don't know if people have raised hands or Kathleen. I haven't been monitoring the chat, but I if anything's come up in the chat, I really wanna turn it over to the group to answer or provide any thoughts or context relative to the questions laid out regarding adding or how additional environmental and social justice issues can be potentially taken up in the context of refining or modifying existing map products. Not all at once?
Speaker 4
Coco. Thanks very much for for that, introduction and and overview. I think, you know, the map is, you know, critically important to how we proceed. But, you know, I think some of the areas where it could be adapted are really related to the objectives of the commission. So, as an example, if we had as part of the objective is to look at, prevention, then the map might look very different.
And so sort of outlining what the goals are for the map beyond the current, use of the map, I think, would help inform its direction. The other thing that I think is really important for this map as we think about how it relates to overall collaboration across agencies is really how it integrates with other map, with other maps. So as an example, we have community wildfire protection plans or CWPPs, And they exist across the state, at lots of different levels, city level, county level, more broad, even specific to a particular neighborhood neighborhood. So, you know, I think having that map relate somehow to what those other plans are is a great place to start. You know, here in in Santa Rosa, we have, you know, I think upwards of 30 plus different fire departments and sort of understanding how that look interacts with what we're doing with this map, I think, is is really important.
Thanks.
Speaker 1
Thanks for that, Will. Appreciate appreciate the comments and and and thoughts. We get any other takers, Kathleen? I'm scrolling through quickly myself. Not seeing any.
Okay. Oh, see a hand raised. Chris? Oh, Chris. Hey, Coco.
How are you?
Speaker 5
Yeah. Just another comment to go off to to Will's comment is one of the issues we see around other programs such as, say, SJIP or something when the fire threat maps are used for eligibility. It just there's you know, they they tend to become the default, so I don't you know, either it has that has to be incorporated into the fire threat map process, looking at how they interface with other programs, or we need to develop other maps for those program.
Speaker 1
Thanks for that comment, Chris. And that's a great example. Right? So for example, like, the SCHIP program. And the intent of the fire threat map is intended to be somewhat of an agnostic scientific map that is outlining where the wildfire risks are.
But I think as we go down the path of thinking around how do does that map then get incorporated into other types of decision making, whether it be SJIP, whether it be PSPS or other types of issues, what are additional kind of contextual layers or overlays that can be placed on top of that map to better refine and scope and take into account other characteristics or features or issues that the map itself isn't designed to take into account. And I appreciate the comments from Will and Chris. It looks like that's stirred some additional hands to be raised. I see a couple on my screen here. The first Richard Scaff and then Mary Rose.
Richard, you you may be double muted. Richard, it it's unfortunately, I don't think your audio is coming through for whatever reason. Maybe we can try to go with Mary Rose. And Richard, if you could maybe type in your comment into the chat. Sorry about that.
Speaker 6
Hi, everybody. This is Mary Rose Taruk. I'm with the Reclaim Our Power Utility Justice Campaign. You probably heard us at public comment, sessions, during, different, CPC meetings. So the Reclaim Our Power campaign works with a lot of folks who have survived fires and shutoffs including folks from the disability justice community.
And so I wanna echo a little bit about what Will said about what are what are the goals of these maps? And, you know, wildfire safety around safety, like, what kinds of safety goals do we have? And so if we frame it in that way, the things that we're seeing around safety are are both, like, the vulnerable populations. Right? So including so for instance, even within the vulnerable populations, medically vulnerable groups or or households, we've seen and we've studied actually, some of our researchers from the Institute for Energy Justice has looked into do the utilities like PG and E know where the vulnerable vulnerable households are?
And and the answer generally is no. Not really. Even though they have some medical baseline customers that they've identified, there's still largely folks who are not in that list or program. And so we need to be able to get to those folks if if safety, especially around, electricity, continuous electricity during shutoffs or evacuations that we we we have those lists and maps of where they are so that they can have the information to keep them safe. There's also safety for those who have already experienced fires and the effects of that.
What about, for instance, the farm worker community in Sonoma Napa area? So we work with groups, on the ground there who have a whole, huge task of trying to recover from previous fires, much less the threat of oncoming ones. So what is the safety plan and mapping for making sure that that farm workers and the farm worker community are are safe and are being helped from the effects that they've already been exposed to. Other and then wildfire safety in terms of just like the overall energy system. We're like, how can how can the public well, reclaim our powers trying to make sure that we have more community and and frontline community and worker control of our energy system, and certainly away from PG and E because PG and E has been known to to burn us down.
And so how are we moving towards more community and worker control and and ability to take care of our of our communities. So how how are we tracking where PG and E, for instance, is failing us and the the accountability measure within the CPUC and the plan of reorganization that was put in place. Like, where is that tracking happening? And is the wildfire safety division the group that is doing that through maps or this program. So the I'll I'll I'll stick with those three for now.
Would love to hear your thoughts on that.
Speaker 1
Thanks for those comments, Mary Rose. And and and I think, you know, you brought up some really good points, especially around a couple of particular areas that that I know of are of high importance, specifically around medically vulnerable groups. And one of my thoughts on this particular issue is ultimately, and this is kind of where I think it would be useful to have some additional thought and dialogue, and I don't want to spill too much into Shreya's time. How do we get the right people involved in the right proceeding, in the right processes, where these types of discussions are taking place? Because I think across the board, I haven't met anyone who disagrees that identifying where medically vulnerable people are is an important thing, especially as it relates to not just utility work and PSPS and other things, but just in general.
And what are the proper data sources? Where is that information obtained? What CBOs can utilities work with? How can we get these types of people involved in the various proceedings we have going forward before the commission so that we can really spur and get this type of input? Because I think it's highly highly important to make sure we have the right people in the room having the right types of discussions and adding the right context because oftentimes, as happened as as in those of you who have participated in a lot of our proceedings, we don't always get a really broad spectrum of participation from a lot of different groups.
And so how and and I really want us to think through that. How can we, as an agency, as a CPUC, better reach out and attract and get people on board? One thing that has always been a bit of a surprise to me is how few people are really well aware of certain programs and things we have, like intervener compensation, where we actually compensate interveners for getting involved and making substantial contributions to our decision making processes. The agency, by design, is intended to solicit input from the public, from certain community based organizations, stakeholder groups. And I think, you know, one of the things that has been a challenge for me as staff working up through the commission almost for the past decade is how do we attract and get the right people into these settings to be able to provide some of the input from an organization like Reclaim Our Power that Mary Rose is mentioning or through the various groups that get involved in, for example, SGIP that Chris mentioned.
And so to me, those are some of the issues that I think, and I would be willing and I and I know at some point, gotta turn it back to Shreyas because we're fast running out of time, and I wanna allow him an opportunity. But I would love to, if folks have thoughts on on any of these questions that I raised, especially around soliciting and engaging more entities to get involved and participate in, proceedings and efforts we have going on. I would welcome that to be submitted via chat or in email to the inbox that I had mentioned earlier, which I will also drop in the in the chat box. I'm gonna, for one second, try to turn it back over to Richard. I I feel bad that we weren't able to get to your comment, Richard.
So if you can speak up, feel free. Otherwise, if we can't hear you, I wanna turn it over to Shreyas to, get into the bench management portion of the discussion. You know, it it your audio still seems like it's not coming through. Really sorry about that, Richard. Feel free to drop it in the in the chat and or send it via email.
We'll we'll make sure your your comments get incorporated into the final discussion. With that, I do wanna turn it over to Shreyas to kick us off into kind of the next wing or or lever of our of our discussion here as it pertains to VEGF management. So I've been talking. Trying to find
Speaker 2
Thank you. So, yeah, I wanted to just offer a few more comments, to kind of frame the discussion, and then I'll I'll set out with some, some questions or sort of discussion prompts. And, of course, feel free to, you know, chime in with, you know, input, feedback, comments on on anything related to workforce development and vegetation management that I may not cover. So, to start with, I think, I'll give a quick overview of the industry and the workforce as we see it at at the state workforce development board. This is, you know, vegetation management and the interface with, our utility systems.
This is an emerging and expanding area of work. There's just more work to be done and more types of work to be done, to make sure that we're we're addressing public safety, worker safety, and, of course, addressing, you know, still the reliability of the electricity system, and without a doubt, addressing climate change. So a lot of a lot of factors that are are expanding this area of work, And with that should be an expansion of employment opportunities, of course. At the same time, before we just start thinking, before we jump to figuring out, you know, well, how do we get more people involved in this sector, in this industry? Because, of course, we hear, and I'm sure many folks here, hear similar things or or share the same comments that, you know, there's not enough qualified workers, to get the job done.
So before we just jump to training and thinking about pathways to to jobs, I think it's important to say a little bit more about the industry. And, specifically, you know, what we see here is, you know, a a lot of contractors, with the utilities who are engaged in this work and major challenges and problems, in terms of the quality of the jobs, and access to jobs. You know, to say a little bit more about that, in this industry, there's there's a and I'm talking about now forestry services as an industry sector overall, and vegetation management is is a piece of that. In the forestry services sector, you know, there's a reliance on foreign guest workers, to to do the work. And for a variety of reasons, not excluding that population, there's there's very low pay, very grueling and hazardous working conditions.
And given the nature of the work, there's, challenges for actually enforcing labor law, in this sector. And turning to job access, with a lot of contractors and this being still a somewhat emerging area of work, we don't really have a very standardized set of skills or training, to make sure that that, number one, the work is, performed well, and number two, that there are clear pathways to the jobs in this sector. And so, I'll turn for a second to what I think is sort of beginning to change this sort of industry landscape, both policies and programs. One state law that was passed in 2019, senate bill two forty seven, addresses a very specific aspect of this vegetation management work, tree trimming and and around, utility lines. And that state law, senate bill two forty seven, it, first of all, requires that a qualified workforce, perform this work doing utility line clearance.
It sets a wage standard, a prevailing wage determination, for those qualified workers. And so here, you begin to start to see the the the beginning of some real policy tools to address both job quality and job access. And, of course, you know, immediately following the the fact that we do have now, at least sort of a definition of what a qualified utility line, clearance tree trimmer is, now we need to start thinking about what are the training programs to make sure that we have those qualified, workers. And I'll just mention very quickly that the workforce board is investing in in one such training program, and there are, of course, many others, I'm sure, out in the field. But very quickly, I wanna say that through our high road training partnership program, we're investing in a a new effort, with the electrical workers union, some community colleges, utilities, namely PG and E, and and some community groups, to start actually developing, an eighteen to twenty four month training program that leverages, the electrical workers apprenticeship program.
There's a lot more we could say about that, but for for the for today's conversation, I just wanna leave it that, again, this is, important for two reasons. Number one, the state law and these programs that are being developed, this is about addressing the quality of the jobs, making sure that, again, there's a a decent, wage and benefit standard, that there's investment in training from employers. And with that comes a more clearly defined, and transparent, training pathway, to these jobs. And I don't wanna claim that this is, you know, a a silver bullet or or, you know, a magical answer to all of the challenges, but, again, I think we're starting to see the beginning of that, in this space. And so I think for for the group today, I think the main questions to help guide our discussion, are the following.
Number one, how should the the ESJ action plan address vegetation management and address this growing area of work? Two, you know, how can we help ensure, what more can be done to help ensure that there's a skilled and diverse labor force as well as a responsible contractor pool as this as this industry continues to grow? And then lastly, you know, what standards or mandates or incentives or other kinds of resources are needed? So I'm I'll I'll I'll leave it there and and look forward to folks' input on on those questions. And, again, if that doesn't capture your your thoughts and ideas or comments, please feel free to chime in with anything, again, related to workforce development and vegetation management.
And let's see. Should I open up the chat here real quick? Oh, some long comments. So give me one second to look through this, and maybe as I do that, sorry, Kathleen, is is it you that that might be able to see if there's anyone who's raised their hand?
Speaker 3
Yes. So I do just wanna, do one question before we get back to Will. We have one question from Alexandra. Where can I find information on the IBEW community colleges training program?
Speaker 2
Yeah. We will you know, I'm happy to provide my email address, and I can provide just a a summary of the program. Let me also mention that, we have just, awarded the funding, so the contracting is still to be done. And I believe it'll still be a little bit of time until the training program is actually up and running. And and once that happens, then I think, we'll be able to have a a specific contact that we can point people to, that may be interested in in, signing up for that training program.
So, I'll put my email in the chat, and, would be happy to share, you know, just again a little bit of a program summary of of what's being developed, with folks. So let me let me do that now.
Speaker 4
Thanks very much. On the subject of sort of, encouraging workforce development in vegetation management, of course, broadly across the state, that's a real need. I would just, I guess, caution as it relates to the work of the utilities, that this does not, supplant or distract from, the utility's responsibility to do vegetation management around their lines. So to the extent that, this this program is being used, in in relation to supporting the utilities, I think it's really important that it be driven by the utilities so that they maintain responsibility for that. As we know, there's been, you know, a lot of effort recently to move the liability associated with that from the utilities to these very small much smaller contractors that are in charge of doing the vegetation management.
And I would just really caution that that this not be, inadvertently leveraged for that type of direction. I did wanna make a few other comments, in relations to, environmental and social justice more broadly in regards to wildfire mitigation. One of which is, you know, I think the poll that was, put up here was very telling. You know, two to one in terms of the other folks that are outside of the CPUC, there are utilities being represented here. And I think, you know, if you looked at the amount of resources, right, that are behind that, you know, it's probably a 100 or a thousand to one in terms of that representation, which makes sense.
Right? Because those are the folks who are being regulated, and those are the folks who have the resources and the means during a workday to, to show up to a discussion like that. So that makes sense. But I think that that really puts the impetus really upon the CPUC to what Coco mentioned earlier, which is really finding ways to make sure that other voices are represented. And I think being very clear in the CPUC being very clear about how input is leveraged, how a public comment, for two minutes at the podium is leveraged, how is that quantified, how does that make its way to a commissioner's ruling?
How does a public comment, posted on the website make its way for real consideration? And what are those, criteria for which that comment will be considered so that individuals from the public know where to insert themselves and how that really will be substantive more substantively looked at. The other area, I think, in terms of wildfire, related social environmental justice is really around making sure that you have, the voices at the table, particularly around wildfire survivors. Right? So there's a number of different proceedings that stretch across the commission where, different groups are, sort of de facto representing wildfire survivors.
Perhaps that's because they have some financial stake, in another proceeding, whether that be in Alsup's court or through the bankruptcy or elsewhere, the PG and E bankruptcy or elsewhere, that sort of de facto are are, you know, at the CPUC trying to represent those interests for for effect on those other matters. And so I think it's gonna be really important as you look at wildfire issues in general at the CPUC that you're really making sure that that the the organizations that are engaging in those matters that we understand sort of what they represent and what they don't represent and that we make sure that we're doing that outreach to make sure that other voices are at the table. And just last very quick point is that public participation hearings should be incorporated into every single proceeding in some way or another so that we start to hear those voices. We aren't going to be able to get the type of social justice, environmental justice that we want without really reaching out in that way, in a very deliberate way to the public. I know there are all sorts of limits to that, but there are ways to do it in a streamlined way and in a prescriptive way to get the type of input that the public utilities are are looking for, and I would encourage you to do so.
That's it. Sorry to ramble on. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Yeah. I I I'll I'll jump in real quick. So thanks for the comments. And I think, if I if I heard your comments, Will, correctly, you know, the the training program and, you know, addressing the the contractors out in the field is not meant in any way to, you know, let the utilities off the hook or or minimize their responsibility here. And I I believe I I, neglected to mention at the outset that what we know about this industry is that, a a good chunk of the work is done by utility employees, and and a lot of it is also done by a contracted workforce.
And and it's really the the lack of organization of that contracted workforce, that we're trying to address, at least in part, through both the, I think, the state law that I mentioned as well as the training program. You know? And I I don't know that there's more I can say at this moment in terms of, like, what that means for utilities' responsibility. I think we'll need to dig into that a little bit more and and perhaps, as time goes on, not to not to just say that we should wait for a problem to arise. I I certainly don't mean that.
But, just to say your your point is well taken and, again, not to discount, the work that's done by utility employees and the need for the utilities to still be in in that role. And and then to turn to, I think, what Mary Rose had mentioned around worker control, just a couple of thoughts about that. First of all, that, you know, this is absolutely you know, worker voice and worker wisdom in the decision making of these industries is is an essential component for the workforce development board's programs.
Speaker 2
is an essential element of the types of training partnerships that we fund. And the way we operationalize that is we only really fund training partnerships that include both employers and workers and their representatives, namely, unions, wherever feasible. Not and there are many other groups that that should be part of those training partnerships as well. But, you know, that, I think, is, just to speak a little bit to sort of the the way that we're trying to address workforce development to make sure we're addressing economic equity, and and, again, worker voice is an essential element of that. And then to, so I think that that kinda speaks to, the the program or the project that that we're funding.
And, of course, you know, I don't know all the details of the collective bargaining agreement between the utilities and their workers, but that is also a place where, certainly, these issues of, you know, being part of the decision making process could and should be addressed, if they're not already. But I I don't know enough about that to say if and how that's already, part of this, but definitely appreciate the comment about worker control and making sure that, the folks who are on the front lines and and engaged in this work, are are bringing their knowledge and expertise, to the decisions that are made around wildfire safety. So I'll stop there. I think you said is Carl was he's the he's the next one up?
Speaker 7
Yeah. I'm Carl Wilmsen with the Northwest Forest Worker Center. Thanks, Shreyas, for bringing up the contracting workforce and all your comments around the the problems there. You're absolutely right. There's a very high job related injury, illness, and fatality rate in the forestry services industry and very little safety training.
Most contractors, even though they're required by state law to train their workers, they don't. The type of training what passes for training is a new worker gets hired, and he's pair paired with another worker who's more experienced, and he spends a couple of days with that worker, and that worker shows him what to do. That's what passes for safety training. So I'm very pleased to hear about your work on the safety training component. And as you mentioned also, a big problem is lack of enforcement.
There are variety of reasons for that. But one way one idea to help ensure that the workers do get safety training is to implement or institute create a requirement that contractors must demonstrate that their workers have received adequate adequate safety training before they can enter into state contracts. And and that's something that's already done in for wildland firefighters. They have to show their red card, before they can work on on federal forest service, firefighting contracts.
Speaker 2
Thanks, Carl. And, for the sake of time, we'll we'll move on to others, but, would definitely love to follow-up with you or, encourage you to share comments to to get into more specifics of, you know, what that looks like in other sectors that could be replicated here. And, of course, there may be gaps where you know, and and what already exists. And as much as possible, I think, you know, we'd love to figure out the how. And so, appreciate those, those comments and and, your experience, of course, in this sector.
Speaker 1
Yes. Thanks. I'll lock back to that. Thanks for those comments. I've I've been trying to scroll through the chat while some of the discussion was taking place.
It seems several people were having issues getting on the Webex, and that was causing a lot of delays. I I think that will, you know, should definitely be accounted for, and I know we'll be cataloging the chat and the discussion. So I appreciate folks' feedback there, and we'll certainly circle that back to Monica and team. With that being said, I know we only have a couple of minutes left. Kathleen, I wanted to provide an opportunity if you could potentially quickly maybe summarize and read out any takeaways or potential action items that you heard through the discussion today.
Speaker 3
Sure. Alright. So we did hear that we should be looking at how things kind of back to the high fire threat district map layer. We should be looking at how that map relates to the universe of, you know, the world of other maps in the wildfire space. Think about how this map gets incorporated into decision making, like PSPS, S chip, what are the contextual layers or overlays that could be placed on top of that map to take into account other uses.
We heard that we need to be thinking through what are the goals of these maps. For example, do the utilities know where the medically where the medical baseline customers are? How do we incorporate information to keep those folks safe? And then also developing some kind of accountability measure within the PUC to track where progress is happening. How do we use maps for that?
And also how do we get the right people in places has kind of showed up in both discussions around workforce and maps. How do we get the right people involved in the proceeding for these discussions are happening so that we get, you know, the right stakeholders in the room and get a broad spectrum of folks and voices. And then also something that came up in the workforce specifically was talking about, like, training, safety training, and having people be able to show some kind of certificate or something before entering into a contract. Is there anything else I was missing, Coco, Sharias?
Speaker 1
No. The the the one caveat that I that I do just wanna mention in regards to identification, There there's a I wanna make sure we distinguish between medical baseline customers, which is a program that people elect to get into for the utilities, and medically vulnerable populations, which is likely a much broader subset of of individuals. And, unfortunately, fifty five minutes is not enough time for us to significantly provide all of these various topics there to process and time to discuss. With that being said, first off, I wanna thank everyone for their participation. I wanna be mindful of everyone's time.
Secondly, I just wanna reiterate that all the comments we receive and feedback with this discussion as well as anything that we get in response to the email inbox that I provided in the chat earlier, that's esjactionplan@cpuc.ca.gov. Those will all be considered, and the CPUC intends to release a draft of the updated plan later this spring and is going to allow for additional public comment at that time. And so I would encourage folks to remain engaged, and, my personal sincerest apologies for those that were having, difficulty logging on and getting access. I think those are things that definitely need to be taken into consideration as we, as an agency, start looking at our public participation processes and the tools we use to do that. And then in the meantime, if anyone has any additional comments to make that you weren't able to make in the chat or speak up during this call, please make sure to send those over to that ESJ action plan at cpu c dot c a dot gov inbox.
And with that, I do want to thank everyone for your time and participation today. Hopeful to continue these dialogues as we move forward in the future and and have more engagement from interested stakeholders like yourself. Any parting words, Dreyas?
Speaker 2
I'll just echo the, appreciation for folks, participating in our session and and offering, input, and, of course, welcome welcome comments, input, conversations outside of this forum as well, and I've provided my email, for folks who are interested in the workforce development aspect specifically. And maybe lastly, I'll just flag that before folks go, if you're if you're interested, there's a couple of comments in the chat that, provide a little bit more information around workforce development. Alan, from the Air Resources Board, mentioned some training programs at community colleges around the state. And, my coworker, Zach, at the workforce board provided a link to, a major report we submitted to the legislature last fall that has a chapter dedicated to the natural and working lands, climate change sector in in which these issues are discussed there. So for folks who are interested in geeking out a little bit more on the industry and and, some of the job quality and job access challenges, that's a great, piece of material to reference.
So and also know that that's sort of partly our basis for the conversations we'll be having with the PUC in our in our formal agreement to, again, help address workforce development and make sure that we're not just thinking about the training, but making sure that, again, we're addressing all the labor and workforce aspects. And maybe just to close, I'll say that, while the the workforce development and and our vision of that is, of course, worker centric, It is it is absolutely in the industry's, I think, best interest, to address these challenges. It improves productivity. It'll reduce turnover, major issues, I'm sure, in this industry. And, of course, it's it's an imperative for making sure quality work is performed so that we actually meet our, environmental and public health, public safety outcomes, from this work as well.
Thanks so much.
Speaker 1
Thanks, everyone, and, I believe the main session is picking back up at 02:00, if I'm not mistaken. So hope to the the rest of you get to join that. And, thanks again for all your participation, and look forward to continued dialogue and engagement.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.