5. Extreme Temperature

Issue: Implementation of residential use priority in areas of extreme temperature (Senate Bill 2X 68).

We agree with utilities that the public interest does not require providing priority in electricity use to residential customers who experience extreme temperatures. Nonetheless, we apply reasonable caution and adopt respondent utilities' alternative proposal, with some modifications. We adopt utilities' proposal for customer education and advance notification, but permit self-certification rather than require medical certification. We adopt utilities' proposal to use "cooling stations," and expand the concept to include "heating stations." We encourage utilities to locate these stations, and consider seeking legislation, if necessary, to provide funding. Finally, we reject ORA's proposal to establish a penalty for outages over 90 minutes.

5.1. Background

In 1976, the Commission established priorities in the use of electricity among customers. (D.86081, 80 CPUC 157.) In 2001, we were directed to consider the potential effect of extreme temperatures on the health and safety of residential customers, and consider providing additional priorities in use. (Senate Bill X2 68, amending Public Utilities Code Section 2772.) To the extent we determine that it is in the public interest to provide priority to customers experiencing extreme temperatures, we were directed to provide priority only when temperatures are extreme. We were also directed to consider alternatives, such as reducing the duration of an outage, or imposing the outage earlier or later in the day.

5.2. Extreme Temperature Rotating Outage
Exemption

Utilities state that a temperature-based priority in use is both unwise and unworkable. They do not recommend adoption of priority based on extreme temperatures. No party argues in support of such priority.

We do not find that it is in the public interest to create priority in use for residential customers based on exposure to extreme temperatures. The undisputed medical evidence is that health risks associated with short-term power interruptions (up to 90 minutes) are low. Health risks from extreme heat and cold occur most often after chronic or prolonged exposure (e.g., typically more than two days for heat, and over eight hours for cold).

Further, we have provided rotating outage exemptions for all hospitals and DHS licensed SNFs. A significant part of the population most vulnerable to extreme temperatures is thereby already exempt from rotating outages.

We also carefully consider the feasibility of implementing rotating outages based on extreme temperatures. We are persuaded by utilities that there is no operationally feasible and fair method to do so.

There are basically two approaches that might be used. First, regions traditionally subject to extreme temperatures might be exempted. There are several problems with this approach.

Defining areas with precision and specificity is difficult. This approach would also essentially place the entire burden of rotating outages on customers who live in more temperate areas, and effectively reward customers who already consume a greater proportion of electricity in less temperate areas. Further, even temperate areas can suffer extreme temperatures. SCE reports, for example, that 85% of its service area, including every climate zone, has experienced temperatures of 100 degrees or more at some time in the last decade.

It is also unlikely that any geographically based regional exemption could be accommodated within the existing 40% load margin requirements. Finally, a geographically based exemption would be disruptive to implement. Utilities have established rotating outage blocks made up of geographically dispersed circuits. This minimizes the impact of rotating outages on any one contiguous geographic region. Exempting a contiguous region based on temperature would require utilities to excise individual circuits from numerous rotating outage blocks. This would increase operational complexity, and inequitably increase the duration and frequency of outages for nonexempt customers.

A second approach would be to provide exemptions based on "real time" or actual temperatures. There are also several problems with this approach.

Defining "extreme" would be difficult. Also, the definition may be different for various regions of the state. For example, utilities point out that a temperature of 95 degrees would be extreme for the residents of San Francisco and many coastal regions at any time of the year, but such temperature would not be extreme for the residents of Borrego Springs or many inland areas during several months of the year.

There are also operational problems. A single circuit can extend for many miles. Utilities report that they do not have reasonable access to temperature data that corresponds with the locations of circuits. Even if a mechanism were created for access to such data, temperatures would vary along the circuit. Given that utilities have thousands of circuits, the task of monitoring, evaluating, and implementing actual temperature-based exemptions would become unworkable.

Further, utilities would be expected to administer temperature-based exemptions on short notice, and revise their rotating outage plans with little time. Adjusting complex rotating outage plans based on "real time" factors would be difficult, and substantially increase the complexity of an already complex system.

Finally, safety may be compromised. Utilities rely on pre-established approaches for automatic and manual curtailment of circuits, taking into account such things as the location of essential customers. The systems contain a significant amount of preprogrammed information to ensure operational flexibility to meet system demands while minimizing the chances for error. These systems cannot easily accommodate last minute, real time changes without increasing the risk of errors, and potentially compromising public health and safety.

Therefore, we are persuaded that employing temperature-based exemptions would create unacceptable operational and equity problems. Even if such a system could be created, we are not persuaded that the benefits would be worth the costs, particularly given the existence of a feasible alternative.

5.3. Alternatives: Reducing Duration or Imposing
Outage at Another Time

Utilities assert that reducing the duration of the outage, such as to 15 or 30 minutes, is infeasible and inequitable. We agree. None of the problems identified above are resolved by reducing the duration of the outage, while shorter outages would likely create their own set of problems.

We also agree with utilities that imposing the outage earlier or later in the day would be similarly infeasible and inequitable. Again, none of the implementation difficulties identified above are resolved by moving the time of the outage, while time shifting the outage would likely create its own problems. Moreover, rotating outages are most probable during periods of peak demand, which tend to correlate to periods of peak temperatures. Limiting rotating outages to periods of moderate temperature (i.e., early morning or late evening) would, in many if not most cases, insulate certain areas from rotating outages altogether.

5.4. Adopted Alternative: Education, Notification,
Cooling and Heating Stations

Utilities propose using education, notification, and cooling stations as an alternative to temperature based rotating outages. We adopt this alternative, with some modifications.

The alternative is based on the report of utilities' medical expert. According to the expert, heat-related illnesses include heat cramps, heat syncope (fainting), heat exhaustion, and heat stroke, while cold-related illnesses include hypothermia and frostbite. The illnesses range from mild to life-threatening, but the expert states that the health impacts are known and preventable with a good warning system, a focus on prevention and public awareness, and an appropriate community based response.

5.4.1. Education

Utilities report that there is considerable literature showing customers can, with relatively minimal effort, take appropriate precautions to protect themselves from the consequences of a short power disruption during extreme weather conditions. For example, during a heat storm persons should drink fluids (even if not thirsty or active), stay indoors, take a cool shower or bath, limit outdoor activity, stay in shaded areas, and dress in light colored and loose clothing. Those at particular risk (e.g., seniors) should be contacted at least twice per day during a heat storm. Utilities propose disseminating this information by bill insert. We adopt this proposal.

Within 60 days of the date of this order, utilities should include an insert in each customer's bill providing reasonable education about protecting vulnerable customers during periods of extreme heat or cold. This bill insert should be repeated periodically, as reasonable and necessary.

Further, utilities should include reasonable education material in their use of mass media at the time of an extreme temperature occurrence. Utilities should also make a reasonable effort to target outreach to vulnerable populations, such as persons who are in assisted living centers that are not SNFs.

5.4.2. Advance Notification

An entire advance notification infrastructure is now in place, and several methods of advance notification are available before outages occur. (See D.01-09-020, mimeo., page 26 for a complete discussion.) These methods include media (e.g., radio, television, newspapers), websites (e.g., CAISO, Office of Emergency Services, utilities), and individual alert services (e.g., from the State, from private companies). The systems may include notification by pagers or other electronic means. Customers can take reasonable actions to be informed, and those with health concerns can take appropriate precautionary measures.

Utilities propose an additional accommodation for customers who are vulnerable to extreme temperatures. Utilities recommend an individual, automated telephone message to identified temperature sensitive customers prior to implementation of rotating outages, similar to the notification now provided to life support and critical care customers. (D.01-04-006, mimeo., pages 56-59.) We adopt this proposal, and add this notification to our Priority System for Rotating Outages. (See Attachment B, Item 2.A.)

Utilities propose that eligibility for this special advance notification be based on medical certification. Utilities are concerned that there is significant potential for abuse, resulting in individualized notification to a virtually uncontrollable number of residential customers. We are not persuaded, and decline to adopt the medical certification requirement for several reasons.

First, we think the potential for abuse is small. Customers already have many ways to obtain advance notification, as described above. The incremental benefit of telephone notification is minimal. In contrast, it is not an increased baseline allowance (as with medical baseline), nor is it a reduced bill (as with special rates for low income customers), either of which may provide real economic gains to a customer, and would be more likely to be subject to abuse.

Second, the medical certification form proposed by utilities is complex and long. We reject burdening California's doctors and health care infrastructure with yet another form, the benefits of which do not justify the costs.

Finally, the form requires release of personal and private medical information to the utility. The burden on the customer of being required to release this otherwise confidential information is excessive compared to the public good derived by possibly preventing some abuse of the program.

As a result, we permit customers to self-certify for advance, individual telephone notification. We require that the customer essentially complete the first page of utilities' proposed form. We modify the form to remove references to medical certification, include members of the customer's immediate household, and include a short description of possible health conditions that qualify for this advance notification. Further, we require the customer to sign the form stating that the customer or a member of his or her immediate household has a health related vulnerability to extreme temperatures. Our adopted form is in Attachment C. Utilities may work with parties, Energy Division and the Public Advisor to further revise the form (e.g., to promote simplicity), and submit a revised form for approval by advice letter.

We agree with utilities that certification should be for two years, and re-certification should be required every two years, or by December 31 of the year the application is set to expire. Utilities must mail a re-certification form to the customer no less than 60 days in advance of the date the customer would otherwise be deleted. The utility may not remove the customer if for any reason the re-certification form is not mailed to the customer, and may not remove a customer until at least 60 days after the form is mailed.

To address abuse, utilities may request supplemental information from individual customers to verify temperature sensitivity. The supplemental information may not request release of confidential medical information. Doctor certification of vulnerability to extreme temperatures is limited to a request that the doctor certify based on his or her best medical judgment that the patient has increased risk of health related illnesses (compared to the average patient) if exposed to a rotating outage of 60 to 90 minutes during a period of extreme temperature.

We may later permit utilities to universally require medical certification, but only upon a showing of program abuse. To obtain this relief, each utility may file an Advice Letter. The Advice Letter must include evidence that demonstrates there is abuse, and propose a form for medical certification. Absent a very compelling showing, however, we will not permit a form that requires the patient and doctor to release otherwise private and confidential patient health information. Rather, all that we will require is that the doctor certify increased relative risk of health related illness.

5.4.3. Cooling and Heating Stations

Utilities recommend that the Commission establish cooling stations at premises that are air-conditioned and already on distribution circuits that are exempt from rotating outages. These premises might be police stations, fire stations, hospitals, or local community centers on exempt circuits. This will allow customers to obtain temporary relief from extreme heat during the limited duration of a rotating outage affecting their residence, without reducing the number of circuits available for rotating outage. We agree.

Utilities recommend the Commission establish cooling stations, but we are not convinced that we need to be involved. It is the utility, not the Commission, with information showing which community centers and other customers are on exempt circuits. We are not persuaded that we need to order utilities to give us that information before utilities can use it in bill inserts and mass media. Further, utilities can reasonably work with police station, fire stations, hospitals, community centers, and other customers, to determine whether or not each customer is willing and able to be a cooling station.

In some instances a candidate cooling station may be unable to perform this civic service without compensation. The compensation may be needed to offset costs incurred for providing cooling station services. We encourage utilities to consider working with such candidate customers to seek legislation, if necessary, to provide requisite funding.

We also extend the cooling station concept to heating stations. That is, extreme temperatures may be either hot or cold. To the extent a rotating outage might occur in the winter, heating stations may be needed to the same extent as cooling stations. Utilities must undertake a heating station effort similar to that for cooling stations.

5.5. Penalty for Outages Over 90 Minutes

Based on its reading of the report submitted by utilities' medical consultant, ORA concludes that an outage of 60 minutes does not present a medical risk, while a outage longer than 90 minutes does. ORA proposes that utilities be penalized for outages over 90 minutes absent extenuating circumstances. We decline to adopt this recommendation.

The risk of adverse health effects increases with the duration of exposure to extreme temperatures. We are not persuaded, however, that 90 minutes is a reasonable limit for that exposure in relation to rotating outages. Utilities' medical consultant reports that adverse outcomes from exposure to intense heat or cold mostly occur after chronic exposure of more than several hours or days. The remaining risks from shorter exposures can be reasonably mitigated with education, advance notification, and cooling and heating stations.

Further, operational factors during a Stage 3 emergency dictate some reasonable flexibility. For example, a slightly extended rotating outage may prevent operational complications and reduce risk to the grid at large, in some particular circumstances. Alternatively, the CAISO might notify the utility that Stage 3 may expire minutes after the transfer to another rotating outage block. A utility might extend the outage to the existing block for a few minutes rather than cause another block to be interrupted for only a short time, thereby maintaining the availability of that next block for the entire duration of a subsequent Stage 3 event.

Utilities report that they are committed to outage durations of 60 to 90 minutes, and would only extend an outage beyond 90 minutes if there are extenuating circumstances. System operators should be free to use reasonable discretion within existing law, orders and rules. There is no evidence that any utility is improperly implementing rotating outages such that further guidance or constraints are needed. There is no evidence that lack of defined penalties has adversely affected implementation of electricity emergency rotating outage plans. We are not persuaded the medical evidence demonstrates that outages must be limited to 90 minutes, or that utilities should be automatically penalized for outages over 90 minutes.

Moreover, as PG&E points out, we retain discretion to investigate and sanction specific utility action if a utility fails to comply with existing standards and Commission directives. We may also investigate and sanction unreasonable conduct.