[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-241381-105":53,"doc-detail-241381-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","the-public-advocates-office-reply-comments-on-phase-4-track-2-technical-working-groups-reply-comments","THE PUBLIC ADVOCATES OFFICE REPLY COMMENTS ON PHASE 4 TRACK 2 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS - Reply Comments","","Reply comments submitted by the Public Advocates Office to the California Public Utilities Commission under Risk-based Decision-making Framework Rulemaking (R.) 20-07-013. The document addresses arguments from Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison regarding whether accountability belongs in Risk Mitigation Templates, explains why the Commission should include it, and responds to claims about template scope, duplication, prescriptiveness, and process requirements. It also highlights the need for annual updates and discusses using geospatial data to rank and prioritize mitigations for evaluation.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/the-public-advocates-office-reply-comments-on-phase-4-track-2-technical-working-groups-reply-comments/241381/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-public-advocates-office-reply-comments-on-phase-4-track-2-technical-working-groups-reply-comments/241381.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Melati","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-11","2026-09-12",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What is the purpose of the Public Advocates Office reply comments in this RDF proceeding?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"To respond to opening comments filed by PG&E and SCE (and related utilities) on matters concerning the Risk Mitigation Templates within Rulemaking R.20-07-013.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"Why does Cal Advocates argue that accountability is within the scope of the Risk Mitigation Templates?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The comments state that the Commission clearly provides that accountability is part of the templates, and that the opposing view misreads both law and facts.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What additional process improvements does the document support for evaluating utility risk mitigation?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"It supports annual updates for timely feedback and alignment with RAMP/GRC schedules, and it argues geospatial data can rank and prioritize mitigations more effectively than Microsoft Excel.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},241381,1790539782,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":40,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},962085570644,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  \nOrder Instituting Rulemaking to Further Develop a Risk-based Decision-making Framework for Electric and Gas Utilities.  \nRulemaking 20-07-013  \nTHE PUBLIC ADVOCATES OFFICE REPLY COMMENTS ON PHASE 4 TRACK 2 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS  \nFILED  \n03/10/25 04:59 PMR2007013  \nANNA YANG  \nSenior Regulatory Analyst  \nCHRISTOPHER PARKES  \nSupervisor  \nPublic Advocates Office  \nCalifornia Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue  \nSan Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 703-2144  \n[Email: ](Email: Anna.Yang@cpuc.ca.gov)[Anna.Yang@cpuc.ca.gov](Email: Anna.Yang@cpuc.ca.gov)  \nMICHAEL EINHORN  \nAttorney  \nPublic Advocates Office  \nCalifornia Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue  \nSan Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 703-4852  \n[Email: ](Email: Michael.Einhorn@cpuc.ca.gov)[Michael.Einhorn@cpuc.ca.gov](Email: Michael.Einhorn@cpuc.ca.gov)  \nMarch 10, 2025  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nPage  \nI. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1  \nII. COMMENTS........................................................................................................... 1  \nA. SCE and PG&E incorrectly contend that accountability should be outside the scope of the Risk Mitigation Templates....................................1  \n1. Accountability is within the scope of the Risk Mitigation Templates.........................................................................................2  \n2. SPD and the parties have robustly addressed the Risk Mitigation Templates and RMAR, including accountability issues................................................................................................4  \n3. Cal Advocates proposes standardized templates that will enable the Commission to evaluate utility risk mitigation proposals..........................................................................................7  \nB. The Risk Mitigation Templates will streamline Commission review of utility risk mitigation proposals...................................................9  \nC. A request for two risk mitigation alternatives per mitigation program does not institute a new RDF requirement..................................10  \nD. Annual updates are necessary to provide timely feedback to assess risk mitigation performance and to align current information with RAMP and GRC proceeding schedules.....................................................11  \nE. Cal Advocates Risk Mitigation Templates are not duplicative or prescriptive................................................................................................. 12  \nF. Geospatial data can better rank and prioritize mitigations than Microsoft Excel.......................................................................................... 13  \nIII. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 15  \nBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  \nOrder Instituting Rulemaking to Further Develop a Risk-based Decision-making Framework for Electric and Gas Utilities.  \nRulemaking 20-07-013  \nTHE PUBLIC ADVOCATES OFFICE OPENING COMMENTS ON PHASE 2 TRACK 2 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS  \nI. INTRODUCTION  \nPursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Entering Phase 4 Technical Working Group Materials and Related Staff Proposal into the Record and Setting Comment Schedule (ALJ Ruling)1 in this Risk-based Decision-making Framework (RDF) Rulemaking (R.) 20-07-013, 2 the Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates) submits its Reply Comments in response to Opening Comments filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)/San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E).3  \nII. COMMENTS  \nA. SCE and PG&E incorrectly contend that accountability should be outside t","cbCaimeTHttPmKn8","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimeTHttPmKn8","pdf",758980,"English","# TABLE OF CONTENTS\n## I. INTRODUCTION\n## II. COMMENTS\n### A. SCE and PG&E incorrectly contend that accountability should be outside the scope of the Risk Mitigation Templates\n### B. The Risk Mitigation Templates will streamline Commission review of utility risk mitigation proposals\n### C. A request for two risk mitigation alternatives per mitigation program does not institute a new RDF requirement\n### D. Annual updates are necessary to provide timely feedback to assess risk mitigation performance and to align current information with RAMP and GRC proceeding schedules\n### E. Cal Advocates Risk Mitigation Templates are not duplicative or prescriptive\n### F. Geospatial data can better rank and prioritize mitigations than Microsoft Excel\n## III. CONCLUSION","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of the Public Advocates Office reply comments in this RDF proceeding?\",\"answer\":\"To respond to opening comments filed by PG\\u0026E and SCE (and related utilities) on matters concerning the Risk Mitigation Templates within Rulemaking R.20-07-013.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does Cal Advocates argue that accountability is within the scope of the Risk Mitigation Templates?\",\"answer\":\"The comments state that the Commission clearly provides that accountability is part of the templates, and that the opposing view misreads both law and facts.\"},{\"question\":\"What additional process improvements does the document support for evaluating utility risk mitigation?\",\"answer\":\"It supports annual updates for timely feedback and alignment with RAMP/GRC schedules, and it argues geospatial data can rank and prioritize mitigations more effectively than Microsoft Excel.\"}]","THE PUBLIC ADVOCATES OFFICE REPLY COMMENTS ON PHASE 4 TRACK 2 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS - Reply Comments | PDF",1789174388,6]