California expands protection against power outages during heat waves

from Alejandro LazoCalMatters

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Subscribe to your newsletters.

This article is also available in English. Read it here.

California prohibits power companies from turning off power to customers who fall behind on their payments during extreme heat, a key safety measure. In some rural areas, a lack of electricity can also mean a lack of water, and in cities, the lack of a way to cool down can be dangerous, even deadly, when the heat lasts for several days.

More than a year ago, California regulators have concluded that rules protecting non-regular customers from power outages during heat waves aren’t tough enough. They ordered the state’s major energy companies to implement better safeguards.

When the utilities unveiled their plan in December, their proposals changed little, the commission concluded on Thursday given that the changes “do not offer sufficient protection to the health of consumers”.

The commission had set May 1 as the deadline for the new rules to come into force. Missed deadlines for utilities and consumer advocates made urgent requests to request measures.

Facing another dangerous heat wave which harasses the state The California Public Utilities Commission has developed stricter standards. The committee voted 4-0 reduced the temperature at which utility companies must stop shutting off power to delinquent customers from 100 to 90 degrees, and ordered them to adopt a more protective, region-specific heat standard within six months.

A battle to define extreme heat

During an unprecedented heat wave two years ago— Hottest July in California History – The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, asked the utility commission to I will review your definition in extreme heat. The urgent request of the group claim that “heat directly kills more people than any other climate-related hazard.”

The rules are already banned power companies to cut off power to non-paying residential customers if temperatures are expected to exceed 100 degrees within 72 hours.

However, the group argues that a single statewide threshold doesn’t take into account the differences in how Californians experience heat depending on where they live.

Regulators declined to treat the request as an emergency, but They ordered public service companies to develop a plan to change the 100 degree threshold by working with advocates and other stakeholders.

Utility companies suggested the use CalHeatScore a newly created state tool that ranks heat by zip code, from level 0 to 4, using local health data and historical impacts, taking into account data about nearby cooling centers, as well as the number of children and elderly people who may be more susceptible to extreme heat.

The problem: Power companies proposed setting the outage threshold at Level 3, a higher level than advocates wanted, and maintain 100 degrees as the maximum limit when the index is not available.

The defenders protested calling for a wider safety net, arguing for a lower Tier 2 index score and a 90-degree approval threshold.

Utility companies say they can’t meet the deadline because CalHeatScore’s own data system, run by the state’s Office of Environmental Hazard Assessment, isn’t ready to support them yet. Advocates countered that utility companies offered little evidence to justify maintaining the higher 100-degree threshold.

In May, with utilities still behind schedule, The Utility Reform Network joined with the San Diego-based Utility Consumers’ Action Network, the National Consumer Law Center and the Center for Affordable Technology, requesting the commission’s intervention .

The Commission sided with the defenders

This week, the commission rejected the utility companies’ proposal, agreeing with environmentalists. The path proposed by the companies will not differ from the current practice. The resolution notes that the extreme heat threshold is already below 100 degrees in 41 of California’s 58 counties.

A day with temperatures of 32 degrees Celsius (90 degrees Fahrenheit) may be common in dry inland cities like Bakersfield or Fresno, but such temperatures can be atypically dangerous in coastal or mountain communities, where fewer homes have air conditioning and people are less accustomed to the heat.

In San Francisco, for example, extreme heat is considered when temperatures exceed 85 degrees. In Del Norte County, in the far northwest, extreme heat is defined as any temperature above 76.8 degrees, the commission said.

“It is necessary to establish a single temperature threshold to better protect residents in areas of the state that are not accustomed to high temperatures,” the commission wrote in its resolution.

Utility companies are taking steps to comply with regulations

While the utilities wanted a tighter safety net for customers, they now emphasize that they will adhere to the most protective standard.

Last December, the big private electric companies argue jointly that extending protection to consumers with lower heat indices would cause too frequent power outages, increase unpaid debts and generate additional costs without a comparable health benefit. In a document filed in January, the power companies argued that the 90-degree threshold was “too broad,” according to a PG&E spokesperson.

These safeguards will only apply in the event of interruption of supply due to non-payment. They would not prevent outages caused by equipment failure, forest fires or other emergencies. However, those who defend these measures say they are important.

“When the power goes out in a home, it can spell trouble for tenants,” said Jason Zeller, an attorney with the Utility Consumer Action Network. “If tenants don’t have electric service, they can be evicted; if they have children, they can lose custody.”

Contacted before the vote, all three energy companies said they were ready to comply with the commission’s new rules. Edison said the resolution would strengthen protection measures during extreme heat waves and that it was prepared to change its shutdown policies. SDG&E expressed support for the additional safety measures and will comply with the commission’s final requirements.

“At PG&E, service interruption is a measure of last resort and is implemented only after repeated attempts to contact customers and offer payment plans and assistance programs,” said PG&E spokesperson Adrienne Moore. The specific regulations for the region are expected to be implemented within six months.

The Commission’s independent Office of the Public Defender pushed for greater protections throughout the process, formally opposing the utility’s plan. Director Linda Serizawa said the vote would give consumers “protection that kicks in when they need it most.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under license Creative Commons Attribution/Attribution-Noncommercial.